4 ms·

Even staff is not that high. They have long ago eclipsed the cost of running it and now donate/fund causes that are in line with their views. https://upload.w

Even staff is not that high. They have long ago eclipsed the cost of running it and now donate/fund causes that are in line with their views. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2021-2022_Audit_Report.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikim...

galangalalgol 3y ago
Is there a good synopsis on their views and who they donate to? Preferably more than one. I don't typically trust wikipedia for things more controversial than climate data for a particular city, usually more like math or animal facts. But ut would be nice to know the typical biases.
- tempest_ 3y ago
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start
grumple 3y ago
Total revenue 154MM. Staff at 88MM. Total expenses seem to be 145MM and I don't see anything to indicate they are re-donating that money. Where's the source for your comment? It seems to be blatantly untrue, and I'm wondering why. I think the use of the word "eclipsed" is a a bit odd. Eclipsed in this case, and the literal sense, just means it's covered. In this case, revenue exceeds costs by what, 8%?
- LucasLanglois 3y ago
  Wikimedia net assets grew by $50M in 2021. Check the article to get more information.
  - grumple 3y ago
    I read it, and I read their audit report. And in 2022 they grew by only 8MM. So in 2021 they received more donations than needed to just cover expenses. What's the problem? We should want the assets to grow significantly. Ideally Wikimedia would have an endowment that is sufficient to grow at a rate to allow the site to be run in perpetuity without any further contributions.
- tempest_ 3y ago
  The awards and grants line item for ~15MM is the second largest thing listed under staff and ahead of Internet hosting. I do not mind that they provide those grants, it is just something to keep in mind.

galangalalgol 3y ago

Is there a good synopsis on their views and who they donate to? Preferably more than one. I don't typically trust wikipedia for things more controversial than climate data for a particular city, usually more like math or animal facts. But ut would be nice to know the typical biases.

tempest_ 3y ago
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start

grumple 3y ago

Total revenue 154MM. Staff at 88MM. Total expenses seem to be 145MM and I don't see anything to indicate they are re-donating that money. Where's the source for your comment? It seems to be blatantly untrue, and I'm wondering why. I think the use of the word "eclipsed" is a a bit odd. Eclipsed in this case, and the literal sense, just means it's covered. In this case, revenue exceeds costs by what, 8%?

LucasLanglois 3y ago
Wikimedia net assets grew by $50M in 2021. Check the article to get more information.
- grumple 3y ago
  I read it, and I read their audit report. And in 2022 they grew by only 8MM. So in 2021 they received more donations than needed to just cover expenses. What's the problem? We should want the assets to grow significantly. Ideally Wikimedia would have an endowment that is sufficient to grow at a rate to allow the site to be run in perpetuity without any further contributions.
tempest_ 3y ago
The awards and grants line item for ~15MM is the second largest thing listed under staff and ahead of Internet hosting. I do not mind that they provide those grants, it is just something to keep in mind.