5 ms·

I think this is just the organizational equivalent of having a buffer rather than living "paycheck to paycheck". When Wikipedia has cash reserves a hundred tim

I think this is just the organizational equivalent of having a buffer rather than living "paycheck to paycheck". When Wikipedia has cash reserves a hundred times its yearly expenses, I'll listen.

gred 4y ago
From the article: > In 2007, the year Wikipedia first became a top-ten website serving the world, the Foundation reported total annual expenses of $2 million. > The Wikimedia Foundation is richer than ever. Its assets and reserves [...] have increased fivefold since 2015, and stood at an estimated $400 million at the end of March 2022. I'm sure the "mission" has expanded and costs are higher these days, but 200x baseline costs is pretty comfy.
- fisherjeff 4y ago
  I find it a bit “unethical and misleading” of the author to list 2007 expenses and 2022 assets. As a sibling comment points out, it’s really only <4x current annual expenditures, which, leaving aside disagreements on whether that level of spending is justifiable, doesn’t seem unreasonable.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    I think they are using 2007 expenses to give a ballpark estimate for what "running basic Wikipedia" costs? That's back before the foundation dramatically expanded their activities.
  - yunohn 4y ago
    > current annual expenditures The vast majority is salaries, not operating costs.
crote 4y ago
They aren't far off. At the moment, they have €250M in assets, and a further €100M endowment. Their assets have increased by double-digit millions every year for a decade. In my opinion, the yearly fundraising campaign is highly disingenuous. Basically, they are begging for money, claiming it is to "keep Wikipedia running". In reality, Wikipedia-the-website is an unlimited cash cow used to fund tangentially related pet projects at the Wikimedia Foundation. In 2008, the expenses were €5.6M. 2021 expenses are up to €112M - and I can guarantee page views did not increase 20-fold! At the moment, hosting costs are about €3M / year. Let's round that up to €10M for sysadmin and development salaries, and they currently have enough money to keep Wikipedia running for 35 years. I'd be more than happy to donate to keep Wikipedia itself alive, but at the moment donating money to them is basically the same as throwing money in a bottomless pit.
- ninth_ant 4y ago
  And look at how the emails stress Wikipedia: in the “how your money is spent“ section, specifically using bold in the phrase suggesting Wikipedia, and dropping the bold to reference the other products. It’s extremely misleading at best, given the numbers you cite.
- abbe98 4y ago
  Wikimedia does much more than just host Wikipedia. Even if they didn't host Wikipedia I would personally gladly donate to their legal and lobbying efforts. Only in Sweden where I live they have greatly contributed to freedom of panorama and ensuring public domain material remains in the public domain when digitized. They work towards things like these all across the world.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    That's fine, but I'm not interested in giving them money for anything other than making sure the website is running and has the support staff it needs. Their fundraising material makes it look like the money will be used for that when the reality is it will be used for other, practically unrelated things.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      I mean freedom of panorama is pretty directly related, as wikipedia needs to have users be legally allowed to upload images.
  - zugi 4y ago
    Thanks for pointing that out, but I see that as more evidence of deception. If I'm asked to donate to keep wikipedia free, I don't expect my donations to go to political lobbying on issues that I may or may not care about, and may or may not even agree with.
    - abbe98 4y ago
      Actually both of the cases in question started as legal cases in which Wikimedia funded the defense of users who were being sued for contributing.

I think this is just the organizational equivalent of having a buffer rather than living "paycheck to paycheck". When Wikipedia has cash reserves a hundred times its yearly expenses, I'll listen.

gred 4y ago

From the article: > In 2007, the year Wikipedia first became a top-ten website serving the world, the Foundation reported total annual expenses of $2 million. > The Wikimedia Foundation is richer than ever. Its assets and reserves [...] have increased fivefold since 2015, and stood at an estimated $400 million at the end of March 2022. I'm sure the "mission" has expanded and costs are higher these days, but 200x baseline costs is pretty comfy.

fisherjeff 4y ago
I find it a bit “unethical and misleading” of the author to list 2007 expenses and 2022 assets. As a sibling comment points out, it’s really only <4x current annual expenditures, which, leaving aside disagreements on whether that level of spending is justifiable, doesn’t seem unreasonable.
- jefftk 4y ago
  I think they are using 2007 expenses to give a ballpark estimate for what "running basic Wikipedia" costs? That's back before the foundation dramatically expanded their activities.
- yunohn 4y ago
  > current annual expenditures The vast majority is salaries, not operating costs.

crote 4y ago

They aren't far off. At the moment, they have €250M in assets, and a further €100M endowment. Their assets have increased by double-digit millions every year for a decade. In my opinion, the yearly fundraising campaign is highly disingenuous. Basically, they are begging for money, claiming it is to "keep Wikipedia running". In reality, Wikipedia-the-website is an unlimited cash cow used to fund tangentially related pet projects at the Wikimedia Foundation. In 2008, the expenses were €5.6M. 2021 expenses are up to €112M - and I can guarantee page views did not increase 20-fold! At the moment, hosting costs are about €3M / year. Let's round that up to €10M for sysadmin and development salaries, and they currently have enough money to keep Wikipedia running for 35 years. I'd be more than happy to donate to keep Wikipedia itself alive, but at the moment donating money to them is basically the same as throwing money in a bottomless pit.

ninth_ant 4y ago
And look at how the emails stress Wikipedia: in the “how your money is spent“ section, specifically using bold in the phrase suggesting Wikipedia, and dropping the bold to reference the other products. It’s extremely misleading at best, given the numbers you cite.
abbe98 4y ago
Wikimedia does much more than just host Wikipedia. Even if they didn't host Wikipedia I would personally gladly donate to their legal and lobbying efforts. Only in Sweden where I live they have greatly contributed to freedom of panorama and ensuring public domain material remains in the public domain when digitized. They work towards things like these all across the world.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  That's fine, but I'm not interested in giving them money for anything other than making sure the website is running and has the support staff it needs. Their fundraising material makes it look like the money will be used for that when the reality is it will be used for other, practically unrelated things.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    I mean freedom of panorama is pretty directly related, as wikipedia needs to have users be legally allowed to upload images.
- zugi 4y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out, but I see that as more evidence of deception. If I'm asked to donate to keep wikipedia free, I don't expect my donations to go to political lobbying on issues that I may or may not care about, and may or may not even agree with.
  - abbe98 4y ago
    Actually both of the cases in question started as legal cases in which Wikimedia funded the defense of users who were being sued for contributing.