4 ms·

From 'What it Costs to Run Wikipedia' Wikipedia spends $US 3m on hosting in 2024. They spend $US 107m on salaries. So their hosting costs might have gone to,

by sien 2y ago

From 'What it Costs to Run Wikipedia' Wikipedia spends $US 3m on hosting in 2024. They spend $US 107m on salaries. So their hosting costs might have gone to, say, $US 5m at the outside. That is they are maybe 1/20th of their salary cost. AI's extra scraping might be a problem for some folks. But for wikipedia to talk about the percentage increase is disingenuous. Source : https://www.saastr.com/what-is-costs-to-run-wikipedia-3m-in-hosting-107m-in-salaries/ https://www.saastr.com/what-is-costs-to-run-wikipedia-3m-in-...

basisword 2y ago
I don't understand the argument here. If your company had hosting costs increase this much and said "hey sien, we're going to cover the costs by cutting your salary" I don't think you'd be thrilled. Non-profits have staff and they have to pay them.
- falcor84 2y ago
  > Non-profits have staff and they have to pay them. Being the devil's advocate, there are are quite a lot of smaller non-profits that are entirely volunteer-run. While Wikipedia's mission might inherently be big enough to merit a few salaried employees, I can't fathom why they need so many. As per Wilde's famous quip, it seems to me that "the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy".
  - jachee 2y ago
    > Being the devil's advocate Honestly, just don’t. The world doesn’t really need hypothetical antagonism anymore.
    - falcor84 2y ago
      From my experience, if no one is willing to engage in hypothetical antagonism, you inevitably end up with toxic positivity.
- kshacker 2y ago
  I think the fine print in a report is not an issue but the incendiary blue sky headline is.
redundantly 2y ago
An increase in bandwidth costs is an increase. There's nothing disingenuous about that. I imagine it also takes a toll on server, power, and maintenance (staff time) costs as well.
- atonse 2y ago
  But a 50% increase of a relatively small amount is still a relatively small amount. So it helps to show exactly how much more.
mvdtnz 2y ago
So you think it's a fine trade for them to relinquish, say, 8-10 staff members in order to feed an AI machine they never asked for?
- atonse 2y ago
  Do we even know what percentage of their hosting costs is bandwidth?

by sien 2y ago

basisword 2y ago

I don't understand the argument here. If your company had hosting costs increase this much and said "hey sien, we're going to cover the costs by cutting your salary" I don't think you'd be thrilled. Non-profits have staff and they have to pay them.

falcor84 2y ago
> Non-profits have staff and they have to pay them. Being the devil's advocate, there are are quite a lot of smaller non-profits that are entirely volunteer-run. While Wikipedia's mission might inherently be big enough to merit a few salaried employees, I can't fathom why they need so many. As per Wilde's famous quip, it seems to me that "the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy".
- jachee 2y ago
  > Being the devil's advocate Honestly, just don’t. The world doesn’t really need hypothetical antagonism anymore.
  - falcor84 2y ago
    From my experience, if no one is willing to engage in hypothetical antagonism, you inevitably end up with toxic positivity.
kshacker 2y ago
I think the fine print in a report is not an issue but the incendiary blue sky headline is.

redundantly 2y ago

An increase in bandwidth costs is an increase. There's nothing disingenuous about that. I imagine it also takes a toll on server, power, and maintenance (staff time) costs as well.

atonse 2y ago
But a 50% increase of a relatively small amount is still a relatively small amount. So it helps to show exactly how much more.

mvdtnz 2y ago

So you think it's a fine trade for them to relinquish, say, 8-10 staff members in order to feed an AI machine they never asked for?

atonse 2y ago
Do we even know what percentage of their hosting costs is bandwidth?