> Most commentators are taking what I consider to be a very narrow view of what it means to "run Wikipedia." The people who're most up in arms about it tend to

> Most commentators are taking what I consider to be a very narrow view of what it means to "run Wikipedia." The people who're most up in arms about it tend to focus on just the hosting costs, without considering the cost of paying even a skeleton devops crew, let alone paying for ongoing development (of which the WMF funds at least a pretty solid majority). Reasonable people can disagree about whether the WMF is spending its money correctly, of course, or whether it's overspending on otherwise-necessary categories. I dislike the implicit argument that we shouldn't pay people to work on open source projects, though.