Wikipedia is swimming in money–why is it begging people to donate?

Post by xbar » Mon, May 31, 2021, 7:34 AM UTC

ramraj07 wrote: post #31

zozbot234 wrote: post #21

Let's be clear about this, the donation money isn't just used to keep the encyclopedia online. They have hundreds of language versions of Wikipedia itself, and many related "sister" projects, with perhaps the most clearly impacting being Wikimedia Commons (a huge repository of free-content media with a focus on educational use - including much media in the public domain) and Wikidata (a project that has now emerged a…

Let’s be clear, the article does mention the size of the org and some salaries, but it’s clear it’s main premise is the outrageous amount of money they have already amassed and still hiding it in their messaging to make more. It doesn’t matter if they have big plans, the way they ask for money doesn’t say that it says they can’t survive without my 10 bucks which is disgusting. I’d rather be shown ads than this.

Post by selfmodruntime » Mon, May 31, 2021, 7:38 AM UTC

Clewza313 wrote: post #108

paxys wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because 10 years ago WMF's expenses were $10M/year I linked to a source for their financial reports and you still pulled the number straight out of your ass.

19/20 expenses were $112M. Per the 09/10 annual report below, 10 years earlier expenses were $10.27M. What exactly am I pulling out of my ass? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/AR_web_a...

Post by zozbot234 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 7:41 AM UTC

onurcel wrote: post #140

zozbot234 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your idea of "survival"? Wikipedia has already been bleeding editors for a long time as the overall climate on the Web has shifted away from openness and towards profit-seeking and mindless consumption. They portray themselves as "essential infrastructure in the ecosystem of free knowledge" which looks like a factual and fair assessment to me. This is what must survive for the foreseeable future. It's not just…

then why they don't beg for editors? they also have enough cash to develop a more appealing editor experience, but all they are asking is money.

Post by peteretep » Mon, May 31, 2021, 7:45 AM UTC

ramraj07 wrote: post #29

jonahbenton wrote: post #14

Ridiculous question and even more ridiculous factoids. The assumption that operating as a non-profit implies an entity should stop asking its audience for help advancing the mission, or that it should pay its necessary staff less than competitive wages...please. Give wikipedia more so they can take on the MUCH more well-endowed and entirely opaque private capital taking over nearly every other information outlet in t…

What a ridiculous criticism of a valid article with a lot of facts. I have donated to Wikipedia several times and feel violated now. They might have not lied outright but acting as if you’re a poor Non profit when you are most definitely not poor is outrageous. I don’t know if Jimmy Wales is part of this entire charade but this is exactly what you expect to happen when you employ a CEO who charges north of half a mil…

Post by paxys » Mon, May 31, 2021, 7:47 AM UTC

marcan_42 wrote: post #83

paxys wrote: post #75

> But keeping Wikipedia online is a task that the WMF could comfortably manage on $10 million a year This part is disingenuous and bordering on malicious. The linked email ( https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March... ) has so much more nuance, and in typical fashion a single number from it is taken completely out of context to push a certain narrative. It is also an estimate from almost a decade…

Did you read their article? They mention how money they funnel into the fund is counted as "expenses", as is stuff like hiring 40 people just for fundraising. I have no doubt they could keep the website up and maintained on something of the order of $10m/year.