3 ms·
Wikipedia is totally overfunded [edit: this was true in previous years but maybe now the bloat is finally winning] and couldn't spend all their money if they wa
by wmf 3y ago
Wikipedia is totally overfunded [edit: this was true in previous years but maybe now the bloat is finally winning] and couldn't spend all their money if they wanted to. I guess giving some away is more interesting than letting the money accumulate.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoThey could also slow down fundraising.
- wmf 3y agoI think they're worried about losing non-profit status.
- fakedang 3y agoUnless I'm missing something, trusts can still keep nonprofit status without fundraising.
- CameronNemo 3y agoHow would that happen? I'm not familiar with the peculiarities of nonprofit law.
- wmf 3y agoThey need to get 1/3 of their revenue (over $50M) as donations from the general public to qualify as a charity. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-annual-reporting-requirements-form-990-schedules-a-and-b-public-charity-support-test https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizatio...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- IshKebab 3y agoThey definitely could spend all their money. If it becomes national news that your Wikipedia donations aren't really spent on Wikipedia then people might stop donating. They spend $145m/year and raise about $155m/year, so they're basically spending everything they get.
- readthenotes1 3y agoHm. If I had $10m surplus a year I wouldn't call it "basically spending everything". Even if you ignore the fact that size matters, 93% isn't basically everything either.
- IshKebab 3y agoIf your revenue is based on $155m in donations then yes it is basically everything. You think that can't go down by $10m in a year?