31–34 of 34 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not the piece, it’s the editorialized headline. (Now fixed)
The point of the piece is to highlight the discrepancy between the tone of Wikipedia's fundraising and mission and the reality of their system and financial situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even staff is not that high. They have long ago eclipsed the cost of running it and now donate/fund causes that are in line with their views. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikim...
Total revenue 154MM. Staff at 88MM. Total expenses seem to be 145MM and I don't see anything to indicate they are re-donating that money. Where's the source for your comment? It seems to be blatantly untrue, and I'm wondering why. I think the use of the word "eclipsed" is a a bit odd. Eclipsed in this case, and the literal sense, just means it's covered. In this case, revenue exceeds costs by what, 8%?
I do not mind that they provide those grants, it is just something to keep in mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even staff is not that high. They have long ago eclipsed the cost of running it and now donate/fund causes that are in line with their views. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikim...
Is there a good synopsis on their views and who they donate to? Preferably more than one. I don't typically trust wikipedia for things more controversial than climate data for a particular city, usually more like math or animal facts. But ut would be nice to know the typical biases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure they meant the people who write the software and operate the systems that actually host the site.
~100M seems a bit high for that. WP seems to me to be the most cacheable site in existence, I wonder what 100M worth of staff are doing there.