3 ms·
Am I misssing something or is Wikipedia net positive 200M? If this is true, that's eye opening. Weird given how much they beg for money on every article.
by NewsaHackO 1y ago
Am I misssing something or is Wikipedia net positive 200M? If this is true, that's eye opening. Weird given how much they beg for money on every article.
- andersa 1y agoThe amount of money moving through Wikipedia is absolutely mind blowing, and next to none of that is even being used to sustain the site. Hope those still donating to it feel smart about what they're supporting...
- SchemaLoad 1y agoStill a drop in the bucket compared to the money going in to AI companies off the back of wikipedia data.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoBecause that's how you build up a foundation that will be self-sustaining when the donations run out. It's not a bad strategy. I've looked at Wikimedia's financial statements and have no problem giving a small monthly amount to them considering how much value I get from the site. I certainly prefer my money going to them than to Zuckerberg or Altman or MSFT shareholders.
- int_19h 1y agoThe real question, given how handy Wikipedia is as training data, is why it's your money going to them, and not Zuckerberg's or Altman's or Nadella's.
- dghlsakjg 1y agoThey have that much in assets. I'm not sure what that actually looks like in terms of cash vs. non-liquid assets vs. assets with strings attached. If you look at revenue vs spend they are net positive by about 7mm last year.
- cg5280 1y agoYou aren't missing anything. This has been an increasingly popular criticism of Wikipedia. They are doing just fine financially.
- lurk2 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti...