5 ms·

Thats exactly the point why people are reluctant to donate. The budget for running Wikipedia the website is rapidly approaching single digit percentages while t

• Argorak 14y ago
  I agree that the foundation could do a better job at actually propagating that the running costs of wikipedia are not the server costs, but also the cost of governance and evolution and that alot of the results of that make wikipedia better in the end. So the angle of advertisement may be improvable, but I still think that it is worthwile to fund all their other projects through donations.
• chris_wot 14y ago
  I'm not following. Why are people reluctant to donate? And why do you say that? The donation drives are quite successful!
• _delirium 14y ago
  A lot of those people are doing things like working on software and doing DevOps, which seems like "running Wikipedia the website to me". People complain that MediaWiki needs a visual editor that's easier for people to use, so Wikimedia hired developers who are working on that. That's pretty directly related to operational expenses, no? People also want more frequent and better database dumps, scaling to account for more traffic and improve reliability, worldwide mirroring of the database servers to reduce latency across the world, a replacement of the increasingly crufty template language, etc., etc. All reasonable requests, but they require a staff of developers and sysadmins to implement.
• davidgerard 14y ago
  >Thats exactly the point why people are reluctant to donate The evidence appears to be against you on this claim.