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

Post by uselesstech » Mon, May 31, 2021, 9:45 AM UTC

kaba0 wrote: post #224

uselesstech wrote: post #202

So far this doesn’t seem egregious but there are examples of non-profits cough Red Cross cough where their operational costs outweigh the good that they are able to provide. Definitely something to continue to watch to see if Wikipedia continues to serve the public good.

What do you mean outweigh? Based on what metrics?

Post by mschuster91 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 9:45 AM UTC

yoz-y wrote: post #190

jiggawatts wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is hosted on ordinary rackmount servers at a handful of colocation facilities: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers It does not significantly use cloud services, and as you can see by the picture of their racks, they use standard 1 RU pizzaboxes. Their workload is highly scalable horizontally, and doesn't even need much in the way of expensive "enterprise" hardware such a SAN arrays: https://up…

> If they used an efficient language instead of PHP, that's well within the capability of a single modern server! Hm, since Wikipedia dumps are public, has anybody tried? Moving wikipedia itself might be a large endeavor, but seeing some submissions on HN I think a very dedicated dev or two could possibly manage a rewrite to have a proof of concept.

Post by pydry » Mon, May 31, 2021, 9:49 AM UTC

MrDresden wrote: post #157

ramraj07 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You find it disgusting that a service, which you probably use both directly and indirectly multiple times a day and costs you nothing, has the nerve to give you a suggestion of donating 10$ once? That is a very peculiar attitude to have.

Post by zozbot234 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 9:51 AM UTC

saurik wrote: post #231

soco wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because all Wikipedia needs to do is to keep the website up, yes... This sounds pretty much similar with the argument on which the education system gets constantly defunded.

Funding Wikipedia's side projects--like wiktionary--doesn't seem particularly valuable; Wikipedia doesn't spend much money actually improving Wikipedia, and what effort they have put in was spent on things like the "visual editor" project that both their own surveys and studies showed wouldn't actually improve editing.

Post by pydry » Mon, May 31, 2021, 9:53 AM UTC

bostonsre wrote: post #62

ramraj07 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Short term it does kind of look like they have now money than they need and it may seem a little disingenuous, but I'm not sure that they amassing a large pool of money to ensure for their survival for the long term is all bad. They provide an invaluable tool to the world that allows anyone from anywhere to easily learn about anything. I would say that they are doing a great service to the world by ensuring their exi…