8 ms·

I'll go out on a limb and say we _need_ Wikipedia and it's okay that traffic falls. Physical print encyclopedias got replaced by Wikipedia, but AI isn't a repl

• johnnyanmac 1y ago
  >I've always scoffed at the Wikimedia Foundation's warchest and continuously increasing annual spending. what are they increasing spending on? Are they still trying to branch out to other initiatives? I understand, even with static pages, that hosting one of the largest websites in the world won't be cheap, but it can't be rising that much, right?
  • adventured 1y ago
    For 2023-2024, their budget was ~$177 million. Travel & events was 7.4% of their expenses. Processing fees on donations was 6.4%. Grants & movement support was 25%. Hosting was 3.4%. Facilities was 1.4%. The Wikimedia Foundation is another Komen Foundation.
    • mrcwinn 1y ago
      Why are they paying 6.4% on processing fees? What is "movement support" and where is the travel to? Do they have to publicly disclose these disbursements anywhere? This seems sketchy at best.
      • Kye 1y ago
        Wikipedia is full of the kind of stuff mainstream payment processors balk at, so they might have to use a higher risk processor with higher fees.
        • AstroBen 1y ago
          Don't you think their brand recognition would be an easy way around that?
          • Kye 1y ago
            No. Why would a payment processor make an exception to its risk-based rules for an organization that increases exposure to that risk? Brand recognition is a liability in this case.
        • dghlsakjg 1y ago
          Easily Checked: Wikimedia accepts Paypal, Apple Pay, Google Pay, Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Check, ACH and Money Order. Pretty hard to argue that mainstream processors don't like them. Processors charge higher fees to merchants that are in lines of business with high fraud and chargeback risk, has nothing to do with whether they agree with them morally. They refuse merchants with business they don't like. If it were the case that processors didn't like what wikipedia publishes, they would not be able to accept payment, not have high fees. I can't imagine that wikipedia has high chargeback rates, and clearly the processors don't mind doing business with them. The processing line item probably includes not just the fees that they have to pay to processors, but FX fees, the cost of banking, the cost of paying people to open envelopes, the cost of accounting, etc.
          • Kye 1y ago
            Check the source on the donation page. It looks like they actually use something called Gr4vy above all that to handle payments. https://gr4vy.com https://gr4vy.com Using a platform with its own fee on top of payment processor fees would explain the 6.4%.
          • bawolff 1y ago
            > I can't imagine that wikipedia has high chargeback rates, and clearly the processors don't mind doing business with them. Its actually somewhat common for people who steal credit cards to use non profits like wikipedia to "test" them. Typically such sites have no minimum donation, have donations from all over the world so fraud detection wont think its weird you're spending money half way across the world.
      • anthonyeden 1y ago
        ‘Processing fees’ likely includes the cost of administering the CRM, creating tax receipts and reports, donor support, and all the other ‘processing’ tasks that come with running a large fundraising effort. It wouldn’t just be the credit card fees.
    • SanjayMehta 1y ago
      Maybe they can use the immense volunteer talent at their disposal to build their own AI/LLM. I'm sure all those editors with decades of experience can do quickly outdo OpenAI and Grok and what have you.
    • johnnyanmac 1y ago
      So, as a non profit the other 55% or so (approximately 95m) goes to salaries? That's interesting considering how much work is performed by volunteers.
      • nxobject 1y ago
        How so? I imagine there are many things involved with Wikipedia that volunteer editors don't do.
        • johnnyanmac 1y ago
          Yeah, probably. I understand there's a lot if logistics I simply don't know about. I was inquiring about more details on what the paid staff need to do.
          • kemayo 1y ago
            You can get a general sense of it from the org chart here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Organizational_chart https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Organiz... A lot of it is engineers who work on improving the software that runs Wikipedia, and keeping the site running, which you can see happening at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org https://phabricator.wikimedia.org -- outside of security issues, all the dev work is done in the open. There's constant ongoing work on making Wikipedia and all the related projects work better. There's also people who do the fundraising, community management, legal defense, etc. Then there's general HR infrastructure around employing hundreds of people. Basically, that "Hosting was 3.4%. Facilities was 1.4%." point gets brought up, and neglects to mention that you then need to pay for a bunch of people to manage those servers and facilities. (Disclaimer: I'm an employee of the WMF. I'm just an engineer, so I'm not speaking authoritatively about financial details.)
    • ryanwhitney 1y ago
      They reported a headcount of 644 for 2024–2025. It's all very open if anyone wants to track down details themselves: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_annual_plan_2024-25 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundatio... 2025–2026 is in-progress: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/Financial_Model https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_... >Similar to last year, technology-related work represents nearly half of the Foundation's budget at 47% alongside priorities to protect volunteers and defend the projects of an additional 29% – a total of 76% of the Foundation's annual budget. Expenses for finance, risk management, fundraising, and operations account for the remaining 24%.
  • intended 1y ago
    The production of factually accurate content is a pretty expensive job. We who were born before this era really took off, are spoiled by the journalism standards and information purity levels of the past, especially post the fall of the USSR. Wikipedia is impressive on what it manages to coordinate on a daily basis, especially given only 644 FT staff.
  • nxobject 1y ago
    I imagine that, unfortunately, global legal counsel these days will likely be taking an increasing chunk of their change.
  • bawolff 1y ago
    > I understand, even with static pages Wikipedia's pages are not static. Realistically though most of the budget is spent on improving the website not just treading water.
• RickJWagner 1y ago
  Not for me. Wikipedia had its day, in between print encyclopedias and quick query AI. Its place in history is now set. Something else will come along soon enough.
  • kibwen 1y ago
    Until LLMs gain the ability to cite their sources, they will be, at best, a search engine on top of Wikipedia, and not a replacement for it.
    • Angostura 1y ago
      …. And it will be worse
    • somenameforme 1y ago
      Most/all LLMs have already been able to cite sources for quite some time now.
      • likium 1y ago
        Citing is not referencing links, it's finding primary sources and fact-checking. Kurzgesagt[1], an informational YouTube channel, has had issues with LLMs citing LLM generated content. [1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_zfN9wnPvU0&t=175 https://youtube.com/watch?v=_zfN9wnPvU0&t=175
        • somenameforme 1y ago
          LLMs aren't arbiters of truth - they're just natural language search engines. In a way it's quite similar to Wikipedia. Something being on Wikipedia doesn't mean that it's true, but rather it means that a "reliable source", which are not infrequently less than reliable, said so. And even that often doesn't hold as there's another layer of indirection where it's an editor saying this is what a source said, which is again not infrequently not exactly accurate. And then there's 'citogenesis' [1] where imaginary facts can be circularly whisked into existence. This is why Wikipedia is not a source, but can provide links to sources (which then, in turn, often send you down a rabbit hole trying to find their sources), and it's then up to you to determine the value and accuracy of those sources. For instance I enjoy researching historic economic issues and you'll often find there's like 5 layers of indirection before you can finally get to a first party source, and at each step along the road it's like a game of telephone of being played. It's the exact same with LLMs. [1] - https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/
• zzo38computer 1y ago
  I agree, we will need Wikipedia and it is OK if the traffic falls, and that AI is not a replacement (and videos are not a replacement either). Printed texts are still useful but so is Wikipedia (I continue to use both).
• Razengan 1y ago
  Wikipedia is the best use of the Internet, the best reason & outcome of its existence. Right up there with anime torrenting sites. But seriously, AI trained on Wikipedia should donate to Wikipedia. Why are the AI companies not doing this, or are they?
• aeternum 1y ago
  I think we need Wikipedia competitors. Wikipedia is a victim of it's own success, it was excellent at avoiding bias for quite awhile and the vast majority of articles are extremely well written. However it's massive popularity and dominance have also led to, well this guy put it best: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton#Lord_Acton's_dictum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_...
  • arunharidas 1y ago
    Elon Musk is launching Grokipedia this week as a competition to Wikipedia.
    • sys_64738 1y ago
      LOL I just tried to search "U2" on it but it sent me to a Twitter post. That Twitter post required me to login to see if I wanted to see it. What a joke.
      • olalonde 1y ago
        It hasn't launched yet.
        • sys_64738 1y ago
          The webpage was there which is what I tried last night. Is it gone?
          • GaryBluto 1y ago
            There seem to be several fake websites already.
    • FranzFerdiNaN 1y ago
      Ah yes, launched by the guy who keeps tweaking his own chatbot because it doesnt barf out the lies he wants it to tell.
• al_borland 1y ago
  > Become self sustaining through investments so it can live for 1000 years. I always wondered why more companies or organizations didn’t do this. Pile up money during the good years to allow themselves to not need continued outside income to keep going, so they can do what is right instead of compromising their vision for the sake of hitting quarterly earnings. That isn’t to say they can’t keep making money, but do it for the right reasons that will keep the core business around for the long run.
  • skeeter2020 1y ago
    It takes a pretty altruistic leadership team to plan for 1000 years; even the multi-billionaire tech bros only plan to live for ~200 or so.
    • al_borland 1y ago
      “A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” I recently visited Scotland and on a visit to a distillery they mentioned they bought land in the US to grow trees that will make their barrels one day. The trees take over 100 years to grow (if I remember correctly). How is it we can invest ~200 years into a glass of scotch, yet we aren’t willing to take the same care and long term thinking in most other areas. Even without being around for 1,000 years, I’d think doing this would de-stress and de-risk. Somewhere along way it became a bad thing to have a good, stable, long-lasting business. The only thing that seems to matter now is growth, even if they means instability, stress, excessive risk, and a short stay.
      • redwall_hp 1y ago
        Craftsmen care about what they make, pursuing excellence even if it may take generations. Businessmen care about robbing you now in the most efficient way.
        • Fade_Dance 1y ago
          There is also an element of tradition with scotch, which is something that can survive even the occasional craftsman who may not care as much about what they do, as long as they respect the traditions. Humans don't live that long, and there's a constant onslaught of fleeting fancies, especially in business (Wikipedia foundation should buy some crypto for it's treasury!) Tradition is simply brand value to be monetized for most businessmen (to add to your criticism). Just look at scotch whisky and multinational conglomerate acquisitions. They would never plant trees in America, they simply order giant vats used for the strongest PX Sherry to get maximum flavor per euro for their blending process.
• wodenokoto 1y ago
  I think Wikimedia needs expensive outreach and modernisation to stay relevant. And most of those attempts will be in vain. A poor comparison is how much money coca cola spends on advertisement, even though it is one of the best known brands in the entire world. And most of their advertisement is simply "This is our name, we exists", not even a value proposition or call to action. If Wikimedia sets themselves up to pay for servers and maintenance for perpetuity, they will fall into obscurity. With that being said, I also don't think they are spending their money in a good way.
  • chris_wot 1y ago
    The WMF Australia gets a lot of money, but has barely any members. They have no intention of recruiting more.
• mmooss 1y ago
  Many said (some still say) that Wikipedia is not a replacement for traditional encyclopedias with articles written by domain experts, such as Britannica. Many more scoffed at that, saying those people were just stuck in their old ways and unable to adjust to the obviously superior new thing. Is that you? AI applications are different than Wikipedia and are better in some ways: Coverage is much greater - you can get a detailed article on almost any topic. And if you have questions after reading a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia can't help you; the AI software can answer them. Also, it's a bit easier to find the information you want. Personally, I'm with the first group, at the top if this comment. And now truth, accuracy, and epistemology, and public interest in those things, take another major hit in the post-truth era.
  • consumer451 1y ago
    > post-truth era. I know it’s completely normalized and the official name, but this has to be the most dangerous euphemism of our time. It’s the era of lies.
    • sixtyj 1y ago
      You are absolutely right. But “era of lies” doesn’t sound nice because nobody wants to be a liar… so “post-truth” sounds better: “I'm telling the truth. Almost. But I'm not lying.”
      • consumer451 1y ago
        The inevitable AI investment bubble popping is going to be a big deal, but I believe that the larger bubble of political lies popping is much more interesting to think about. What is that going to look like? How does one hedge against that eventuality?
        • sixtyj 1y ago
          It'll probably be a black swan anyway. So it's best to stay calm, because to hedge against it... Stephen Emmott ends his book Ten Billion with the line "Teach my son how to use a gun."
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  There should be many offline copies of Wikipedia since it makes data dumps publicly available Perhaps Wikimedia is only mentioning a drop in traffic as it suggests how www users may be gathering information, not because it is commercially significant, e.g., decline in audience for advertising Indeed, it is okay for traffic to fall when a website is not trying sell out www users to advertisers. It does not mean the information offered by the website is any less valuable
  • jmathai 1y ago
    > It does not mean the information offered by the website is any less valuable Maybe not less valuable but definitely less relevant. I think both are important.
  • 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
    The value of information is determined by the person using it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_information In the world of so-called "tech" companies, who use public information found on the www as "bait" to attract potential ad targets for data collection, surveillance and sometimes programmatic, targeted advertising, the information may have a value to those companies, for that purpose. They might measure that value by how popular the information is amongst www users But I'm referring to the value of information published on Wikipedia to www users, not so-called "tech" companies who seek to intermediate access to free, public information that they did not themselves produce
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  • 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
    The term "relevance" usually refers to something, i.e., relevant to what But it can also mean "popular" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/relevant https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/relevant "Popular" information, evidenced by web traffic for example, may be important for so-called "tech" companies seeking to profit from intermediating access to free, public information, i.e., acting as a middleman. The information may be valuable to the so-called "tech" company middleman for purposes of supporting data collection, surveillance and online advertising services However, the so-called "tech" company does not determine the value of the information to others. For example, a small group of people may find information on a web page to be valuable for their individual purposes. The web page may receive little traffic. The amount of traffic does not determine the value of the information to the small group
• nneonneo 1y ago
  Traffic is how Wikipedia attracts future editors - people visit the site, some figure out that they can hit "edit", and some of those will go on to being productive editors on the platform. Falling traffic is a problem. As editors turn over and fewer new editors show up, Wikipedia will become harder to maintain. For example, these days, defending against AI slop vandalism is a real problem that needs real humans to tackle - even as AI tools become more useful at detecting low-level vandalism.
• epolanski 1y ago
  Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.
  • supportengineer 1y ago
    Well, any writes are reverted within seconds by the gatekeepers, but sure, ok.
    • fruitworks 1y ago
      the free encyclopedia that ANYONE from Black Mesa can edit!
      • alt187 1y ago
        The free encyclopedia that NO ONE will ever edit.
    • Diederich 1y ago
      Of the dozens of contributions I've made over the decades, some recent, either zero or one of them have been reverted.
      • peab 1y ago
        what topics did you make contributions to? From what I understand, it's mostly political and/or controversial topics that have this issue.
        • Analemma_ 1y ago
          I also have problems with Wikipedia's favoritism of insiders who have learned how to navigate its bureaucracy, but the fact that most edits of political and/or controversial topics are immediately reverted is not in itself evidence of a problem. A priori, I would expect that the majority of edits to political and controversial topics are bad and should be reverted.
• boringg 1y ago
  How much data does wikipedia take up?
  • itishappy 1y ago
    25.60 GB https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_dump_torrents#English_Wikipedia https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_dump_torrents#English_W...
    • boringg 1y ago
      Wow they could easily maintain that for infinity at a low cost (less inflation and you know upkeep).
      • internetter 1y ago
        This is only the size of the text at one moment in time. The edit history is dozens of terabytes and the media is hundreds. All of this must be served to billions of requests a day. Almost every single request involves executing arbitrary lua and/or template syntax which was transcluded into the page. The media, particularly, introduces huge copyright problems. Ect ect. The WMF is undoubtably bloated, but it is not a walk in the park to run Wikipedia.
        • int_19h 1y ago
          I would be extremely surprised if most articles that are regularly viewed aren't precached and thus served directly without involving any code execution.
• kapone 1y ago
  That's a very naive view. WHAT should the Wikimedia foundation invest in, that's viable for a thousand years? That requires a Wall St/hedge fund and/or Buffett mindset. The Wikimedia foundation is none of those, and they're not big enough to make even a ripple in the investment landscape.
  • portaouflop 1y ago
    Invest a little bit in everything / cut all the useless staff and just focus on longevity of the encyclopaedia it’s certainly doable but requires selfless dedication at the top
    • kapone 1y ago
      “Selfless” - what world are you living in?? Money rules. There’s no ifs and buts about it. If it doesn’t have a reasonable rate of return, nobody gives a shit.
      • username223 1y ago
        What Wikipedia are you looking at? It's one of the things that has survived the longest on the Internet without being enshittified. It could live on in Cockroach Mode forever off the money from a modest solar farm or investment in an index fund. If someone sociopath bought the Wikimedia Foundation and tried to strip-mine Wikipedia, the Wikipedia editors could easily take a copy and go elsewhere. Ironically, I was just listening to an interview with Jimmy Wales in which he said that, as individuals, most humans are basically good. They don't meet someone on the street and think "what is the rate of return on interacting with this thing?"
  • CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
    What about reciprocal cooperation with countries around the world? Foundation invests in country bonds, countries include small yearly payments (like dividends?) to the foundation. There is more and more of these "essential global infrastructure" projects, many of them non-profit, yet I'm not sure we're seeing a lot of investment from the globe into those projects.
• incompatible 1y ago
  The Wikimedia Foundation is unlikely to last for 1000 years as an organisation because it doesn't exist within a social / economic system that will last for 1000 years. The US government is already actively plotting against it. Sure, they can try hopping from one country to another, but it won't be sustainable for that long. It's not even certain if Wikipedia itself can exist for such a long period, given fragility of technological civilisation and data storage. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/27/wikipedia-under-investigation-by-republicans/85855314007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/27/wiki...
  • eru 1y ago
    > The US government is already actively plotting against it. Surely, they can set up shop elsewhere on the globe?
  • bee_rider 1y ago
    Wikipedia seems like a pretty good candidate for a seed vault style “let’s make sure this gets really backed up” type project.
    • SchemaLoad 1y ago
      There are a million backups of wikipedia. That's not the main issue, it's the future of the project. If the main org goes down, there will be a million forks of it where none of them have the same legitimacy of the original, edits will die off, views will die off, and the content will become increasingly stale and vandalised.
      • fc417fc802 1y ago
        I see that as an argument for serious research effort into systems of decentralized governance. A project like Wikipedia shouldn't need a centralized community or a singular centralized host. Unfortunately "web of trust" doesn't seem like it will be resolved in a robust manner anytime soon.
        • 1y ago
• mayli 1y ago
  Yeah, it's good for them to save money for fewer traffic.