4 ms·

The "Internet Hosting" line doesn't mean what some seem to think or imply it does. There's a ton of non-volunteer work that must happen to make any use of that

by ff317 4y ago

The "Internet Hosting" line doesn't mean what some seem to think or imply it does. There's a ton of non-volunteer work that must happen to make any use of that hosting bill (software + infrastructure engineering teams, and obviously lots of other departments a functioning organization should have). There are valid debates to be had about how Wikipedia asks for and uses donations, but trying to imply that it only takes ~$3M/yr to "run" Wikipedia and the rest is useless bloat is hyperbolic fantasy and completely unhelpful.

dlubarov 4y ago
While that's true, the majority of WMF's staff is not performing essential functions like IT. [1] shows lots of staff in fundraising, design, brand, marketing, communications, and advocacy type roles. I think WMF's budget history [2] also proves that it's possible to run Wikipedia with much less funding. E.g. they spent $2m in 2006-2007, vs $146m in 2021-2022. They were already a top 10 website in 2007 (per Alexa), so things like traffic growth wouldn't explain that much of their budget growth. [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
- ff317 4y ago
  Of all the departments in the org structure of Wikimedia, the Technology and Product departments are the two with the highest individual headcounts. Combined Tech+Product staff is slightly over half of the entire org's headcount. Most of the employees in these departments are technical in nature (either engineers of some kind or direct supporting roles), and you can make a fair case that they're all necessary operationally for the sites (maybe only Tech is necessary on a day-to-day level, but you wouldn't make it much further into the future without Product's work as well). I would argue that the other departments/teams you listed are also necessary to the long-term health of the Foundation and the sites as well. However, even if we hypothetically decided that your whole list of "non-essential" org departments/teams/functions were a complete waste of resources (and again, they're not, IMHO!), those still don't comprise all the "other half" of the org's non-tech/product headcount, as you're still missing other essential teams like Legal, Talent&Culture (HR), etc, which are also significant chunks (Legal alone is a little over 10% of staff and extremely important and impactful!). As to your point about budget growth: it was a different site and a different Internet in 2006. The org is growing up and becoming more responsible. It's getting more resilient in the face of an increasingly hostile Internet, it's getting better at fighting technical and legal censorship battles around the world, and it's slowly replacing the externalities of burning out a handful of highly skilled and overworked staff with more robust and "normal" staffing where employees can have real work-life balance and vacation plans or departures don't cause undue risks, etc. We're also trying to reach out to and support the growth of underserved Wikipedian communities around the world (both in technical and non-technical senses) in ways that we couldn't even dream of in 2006. Increased costs and overhead are to be expected with all of this! Even at today's Tech headcounts, if you compare us to any other major sites of this importance, scope, or even traffic level on the Internet, we're still operating on relatively-shoestring tech staffing levels, especially considering we don't outsource core infrastructure to 3rd party services or clouds, mostly due to our strong user privacy and legal stances.
  - dlubarov 4y ago
    To be clear I wasn't trying to say that those employees aren't doing useful work, just that they're non-essential. One could argue that product design/engineering/management isn't essential to running Wikipedia either, especially if the work is for sister projects rather than WP itself. And I imagine departments like HR could be much smaller if the org was much smaller. Maybe WMF's budget is justifiable based on its impact. I think most of us just want WMF to be upfront about how donors' funds are used, i.e. to not imply that donations are needed to keep the lights on, so that donors can make an informed decision. Most editors agree that the current banner messaging is misleading, as per the linked proposal.
ProjectArcturis 4y ago
Okay, so how much does it cost to run "core" wikipedia?
- akolbe 4y ago
  This is what the Wikimedia VP said in 2013: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124621.html https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March... "WMF has operated in the past without staffing and with very minimal staffing, so clearly it's _possible_ to host a high traffic website on an absolute shoestring. But I would argue that an endowment, to actually be worthwhile, should aim for a significantly higher base level of minimal annual operating expenses, more in the order of magnitude of $10M+/year, to ensure not only bare survival, but actual sustainability of Wikimedia's mission." Revenue goal for the current year has been set at $175 million. The WMF more than doubles its expenses every five years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial... This is not about keeping Wikipedia online – it's about financing the growth of the Wikimedia organisation. Donors by and large are left quite unaware of this fact; they mostly think Wikipedia is in some sort of trouble.
  - dTal 4y ago
    Well, maybe the VP has a point. A "bloated" Wikimedia organization is probably at least more resistant to hostile takeover / being sued into oblivion / swamped by some sort of crisis than a shoestring one. The more people derive money and social status from running an independent Wikipedia, the more collective incentive there is to maintain the status quo, as opposed to accepting some juicy offer from Google which we'd all hate.

by ff317 4y ago

dlubarov 4y ago

While that's true, the majority of WMF's staff is not performing essential functions like IT. [1] shows lots of staff in fundraising, design, brand, marketing, communications, and advocacy type roles. I think WMF's budget history [2] also proves that it's possible to run Wikipedia with much less funding. E.g. they spent $2m in 2006-2007, vs $146m in 2021-2022. They were already a top 10 website in 2007 (per Alexa), so things like traffic growth wouldn't explain that much of their budget growth. [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...

ff317 4y ago
Of all the departments in the org structure of Wikimedia, the Technology and Product departments are the two with the highest individual headcounts. Combined Tech+Product staff is slightly over half of the entire org's headcount. Most of the employees in these departments are technical in nature (either engineers of some kind or direct supporting roles), and you can make a fair case that they're all necessary operationally for the sites (maybe only Tech is necessary on a day-to-day level, but you wouldn't make it much further into the future without Product's work as well). I would argue that the other departments/teams you listed are also necessary to the long-term health of the Foundation and the sites as well. However, even if we hypothetically decided that your whole list of "non-essential" org departments/teams/functions were a complete waste of resources (and again, they're not, IMHO!), those still don't comprise all the "other half" of the org's non-tech/product headcount, as you're still missing other essential teams like Legal, Talent&Culture (HR), etc, which are also significant chunks (Legal alone is a little over 10% of staff and extremely important and impactful!). As to your point about budget growth: it was a different site and a different Internet in 2006. The org is growing up and becoming more responsible. It's getting more resilient in the face of an increasingly hostile Internet, it's getting better at fighting technical and legal censorship battles around the world, and it's slowly replacing the externalities of burning out a handful of highly skilled and overworked staff with more robust and "normal" staffing where employees can have real work-life balance and vacation plans or departures don't cause undue risks, etc. We're also trying to reach out to and support the growth of underserved Wikipedian communities around the world (both in technical and non-technical senses) in ways that we couldn't even dream of in 2006. Increased costs and overhead are to be expected with all of this! Even at today's Tech headcounts, if you compare us to any other major sites of this importance, scope, or even traffic level on the Internet, we're still operating on relatively-shoestring tech staffing levels, especially considering we don't outsource core infrastructure to 3rd party services or clouds, mostly due to our strong user privacy and legal stances.
- dlubarov 4y ago
  To be clear I wasn't trying to say that those employees aren't doing useful work, just that they're non-essential. One could argue that product design/engineering/management isn't essential to running Wikipedia either, especially if the work is for sister projects rather than WP itself. And I imagine departments like HR could be much smaller if the org was much smaller. Maybe WMF's budget is justifiable based on its impact. I think most of us just want WMF to be upfront about how donors' funds are used, i.e. to not imply that donations are needed to keep the lights on, so that donors can make an informed decision. Most editors agree that the current banner messaging is misleading, as per the linked proposal.

ProjectArcturis 4y ago

Okay, so how much does it cost to run "core" wikipedia?

akolbe 4y ago
This is what the Wikimedia VP said in 2013: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124621.html https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March... "WMF has operated in the past without staffing and with very minimal staffing, so clearly it's _possible_ to host a high traffic website on an absolute shoestring. But I would argue that an endowment, to actually be worthwhile, should aim for a significantly higher base level of minimal annual operating expenses, more in the order of magnitude of $10M+/year, to ensure not only bare survival, but actual sustainability of Wikimedia's mission." Revenue goal for the current year has been set at $175 million. The WMF more than doubles its expenses every five years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial... This is not about keeping Wikipedia online – it's about financing the growth of the Wikimedia organisation. Donors by and large are left quite unaware of this fact; they mostly think Wikipedia is in some sort of trouble.
- dTal 4y ago
  Well, maybe the VP has a point. A "bloated" Wikimedia organization is probably at least more resistant to hostile takeover / being sued into oblivion / swamped by some sort of crisis than a shoestring one. The more people derive money and social status from running an independent Wikipedia, the more collective incentive there is to maintain the status quo, as opposed to accepting some juicy offer from Google which we'd all hate.