Live data from Hacker News

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

dailydot.com

581–590 of 619 posts

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

#581
post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is a non-profit foundation. $374k is a pretty damn good salary for a foundation.

If you want to attract the best talents you also need sufficient benefits. A sense of purpose alone won't let you lodge in cities with high cost of living. If anything, I dare say running a non-profit usually requires a lot more skills, especially people skills and passion than a tech job. I'm not sure how it is in the US but in Europe there is this sense of entitlement when you talk to people that because you work a…

How did we go from $400k to “decent living conditions” here?

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

#582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But Italy and Spain aren't really what I would consider Western Europe Yeah, well, you're American, right? You really are living up to it in many ways.

No I'm Croatian, lived across EU, back home remoting now. Italy and Spain are not considered developed western Europe (neither is Portugal for that matter) it's not geographic, for example you often include Scandinavian countries in that bunch even if it's not geographically correct, so is Switzerland, their standard of living (Italy/Spain) is a tier below. Eastern Europe is a tier below that. Maybe it's a Croatian c…

I’m in the area you consider “Western Europe” and can reaffirm that a €40k salary is the norm. The only people making €80k+ are working for startups or big tech and that’s a tiny slice of the job market. The average director at a successful company here earns €100-120k.

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

#583
post #263

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…

Why do you think that MediaWiki is not optimized to handle thousands request per second just because it is written in PHP? MediaWiki repository size is about 1.4 GB and according to phploc it has closer to a million lines of PHP code. Sounds like fools errand to rewrite it.

I looked into the topic in some detail year ago, because I copied Wikipedia's approach for an in-house CMS editor. I looked through the code, did loads of performance experiments, read through related forums posts, etc...

The wiki staff themselves admitted that the current parser is inefficient, partly because of PHP, partly because the underlying grammar was not designed to be efficient, and partly because the parser itself was built up over time and wasn't easy to optimise.

My approach was to write the parser and a matching "markdown inspired" format at the same time, optimised for speed. Just a handful of small tweaks to the syntax were all that was required to largely eliminate backtracking and achieve a nearly linear parsing time in most cases. If I remember correctly, I had it down to about 1-5ms for a typical 64 KB page, and then HTML generation was another 5-10ms depending on various factors.

What a lot of people are missing here is that Wikis are not at all like typical "ERP" applications. The latter sometimes requires dozens of API calls and thousands of database queries to generate just one kilobyte of output HTML. Wiki is very linear, with a single 1-100KB blob of text as input, a matching 1-100KB blob of HTML as output. It all boils down to the parsing and HTML generation efficiency, nothing else matters!

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

#584

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…

I do wonder what role Wikipolitics plays in the editor bleed.

It's a huge part of what made ME give up on the whole thing.

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

#585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I also notice the coverage dedicated to women vs men is extremely imbalanced. I know they have a separate team working on the issue and big advert banners about it... but the issue remains: Much more is written about men (living or dead) than women.

The beauty of Wikipedia is that nothing prevents you (or other people) from writing those missing articles.

Until some jackass with more authority than he should ever have had decides your article isn't "notable" enough to deserve existence and has it nuked on those grounds.

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

#586
When I first saw the title (I use HN Digest to send Hot Topics to my mail), I thought this was the same as the story I've read several years ago. I have attached some of them here, from 2012 [1], 2014 [2] and 2015 [3].

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_c...

[2] https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/wikipedia-millions-bank-beg/

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12...

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

#587
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything above 100K is sky-high, and you need to have drunk a lot of the SF kool-aid to think anything else. That the cost of living in SF is so high that a wage like that doesn't cover basic living costs is not because the wages aren't high enough.

Hold on there, cowboy. 100k was maybe "sky high" 20 years ago. 100k in most large cities is not. When your modest house costs $800k USD, a car costs 30k, auto insurance is $1600 a year, groceries are 10k a year (looking at you, Toronto), just how in the hell is 100k "sky high"? $80k was a decent salary in a mid-size city 15 years ago. Just because six figures seems like a lot of money to you doesn't mean it's a lot o…

I live in a "large city" (suburbs in a top 10 metro in the US) and $800k gets you a mansion here still. My 3400 sq ft house is worth ~$350k for a "almost new build" (I had it built in 2015) 6 bed / 4 bath, gigabit fiber, swimming pool / soccer field in the community, great schools, shopping, etc..

I'm also a Principal SWE and my salary is well below $200k, though there are years with bonuses, etc.. that I reach $200k

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

#588
post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pay its necessary staff less than competitive wages My opinion is that basically no-one needs to have an income above a couple of times median in the country they're in [it's hard to normalise across countries]. Just because CEOs, etc., think they're worth $millions doesn't mean that charitable organisations should adopt that model. You're panhandling effectively, you beg people to give money but you already have i…

First enforce your (valid) criticism in other companies. If a person could make 10x what he/she currently makes with the same work, why would he/she settle for less? Even with very strong morals, this failing of capitalism should not be dealt with at Wikipedia’s level. Comparatively to US companies, wikipedia’s salaries are hardly extreme.

Fair, but those other conscious aren't begging me to contribute to them paying their execs. And yes, as a consumer I do try and take note of the companies who have the most egregious pay disparities. Charities that spend a lot on donation acquisution, or who use immoral techniques (doorstep pressure, 'gift' giving to create psychological compulsion, ...) should not be supported.

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

#589
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then let those projects fight and advertise for themselves. People donating to wikipedia only want wikipedia, they are unaware of the other stuff wikimedia does. Those projects would crash and burn though, because frankly, no one cares about them. Stuff like wikidata and SPARQL endpoints are an academic curiosity with no real value. The semantic web won't happen, articles do and will. In addition to that, the whole d…

I use Wikidata data (in a non-academic capacity) shrug It's not that easy to work with, but there aren't any good alternatives in my case. Freebase died. DBpedia doesn't compare. Domain-specific databases don't have the data I'm looking for (or it's woefully incomplete and/or hard to link to external entities) because it straddles multiple domains, not to mention they're usually not free. I for one am very thankful f…

Nice (& same!) How do you use it that you couldn't use dbpedia?

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

#590
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have those numbers reversed. According to the article (I presume its accurate), the endowment total is $300M [including funds from multiple years], and the fundraising total so far this fiscal year is $142M (I assume that's gross, fundraising has costs). The majority of Wikimedia's money goes to software development, not keeping the lights on. I think there are definitely reasonable criticisms that could…

> The majority of Wikimedia's money goes to software development, not keeping the lights on The majority of the money goes to grants (because they don't even know what to do with it internally), followed by fundraising and brand building ("advancement" and "communications") which has the largest staff numbers. Then lawyers, and technology staff and contractors are a distant fourth... > a world where WMF spends the ab…

This is almost exactly backwards. Half of the staff work on tech. https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/staff-contractors/

2005-2008 was extraordinary from this standpoint, no question. A reminder of what a small group can accomplish with a vision that brings together a community ready to rewrite the world, from the ground up if need be.

Post reply on HN