(This comment was written when this HN submission had an editorialised headline about server hosting costs) Funny how people will (1) ignore the software devel

(This comment was written when this HN submission had an editorialised headline about server hosting costs) Funny how people will (1) ignore the software development side of things, and (2) cheer on the massive new regulation of "Big Tech" but ignore what that imposes on an org like the Wikimedia Foundation, both during the legislative stage (re. advocacy) and the once the regulation is imposing its bureaucracy. The UK Online Safety Bill is a prime example. Also, Wikipedia is a very important project, but just one of many projects operated by the Foundation. Finally, these articles somehow attack "high expenses" at the very same time as "running a surplus being added to an endowment capable of generating income that will help support then projects indefinitely even if some people stop visiting the sites (and thus seeing the December donation banners) because ChatGPT could be their interface to all the great knowledge". The org is not without reproach, and certainly not the most important part of the overall Wikimedia Movement, but there's a bit of smoke and mirrors going on with articles like these. As for the tone of banners: I believe there's a consultation about them going on right now; they're being co created with the userbase. Go be part of the solution! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising/2023_banners https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising/2023_b...