![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
File:Wikimedia Foundation's expenses evolution by rubrics in US Dollars.svg
What do you think? Worth adding?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
"Why will it require up to US$2.5 million to develop a movement strategy?"
Benjamin ( talk) 10:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
My bad, edited on your page, so sorry for that (did not see that this was not an open, official page).-- LH7605 ( talk) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
<!-- Please note that [[WP:ESSAYS]] states that "The author of a personal essay located in his or her user space has the right to revert any changes made to it by any other user". Everyone is free to make changes to this page, but I reserve the right to have the final say. -Guy Macon -->
"To all our readers in the U.S., It's a little awkward, so we'll get straight to the point: This Friday we humbly ask you to defend Wikipedia's independence. 98% of our readers don’t give; they simply look the other way. We depend on donations averaging $16.36 from the exceptional readers who give. If you donate just $2.75, the price of a coffee, Wikipedia could keep thriving. Most people donate for a simple reason—because Wikipedia is useful. If Wikipedia gave you $2.75 worth of knowledge this year, take a minute to donate. Show the volunteers that bring you access to reliable, neutral information that their work is the biggest act of generosity still alive on the Internet. Thank you."
The above is what you see if you simply read wikipedia without being a logged-in editor. It is, of course, on a black background, and on my monitor fills roughly 90% of the page.
Related:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
"Show the volunteers that"donations come from suckers who stupidly hand money to SanFran. Why don't we apportion part of Main Page to counterprogram? We could put a banner linking to our many assessments of WMF's finances. We could run DYK's about how much WMF pays for furniture and private travel. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Excellent essay!
Having said that, the statistics might better portray costs on a “per view” basis, which has risen, or a per viewer, or per editor. Gross expenditures have risen with an increase in readership and numbers of pages to be read. We need more editors. The latter needs have seemed bent to allow poorer editing/ knowledge of standards. Judging “ per article” than trying for a standard appearance or content.
As the software gets older, it becomes harder to modify.
We need continuing changes to compete, a challenge with old software and culture about appearance.
There are too many articles for the editors to maintain. Quality may be dropping. Easier editing vi new updates may be necessary.
There are too few notable politicians (! No, seriously), too many notable bands who barely make a living, much less, write notable music, too many mediocre sports figures, too many artists, too many articles about non-notable events or people. No longer do we see citation needed after questionable statements and too few of these same statements rm after a reasonable period of time.
We’ve bitten off more than we can chew. I’ve read through large histories that seem true but contain few, if any, citations.
So the essay is probably correct. We once thought that Vandals would destroy Wikipedia. It seems more like our own growth (“cancer”) will do the trick easily enough. Student7 ( talk) 17:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that your essay may explain the latest misguided acts by the Foundation: the attempt by T&S to enforce their version of a Code of Conduct. What we have in the Foundation are a surplus of people with no real purpose to their jobs, so they are constantly attempting to justify being employed, which leads to stuff like WP:FRAMGATE. And their endless process with creating their Plan 2030: they are dragging it out, either intentionally or unintentionally, because once its complete people will need to either find a new project or a new job. As far as I can see, whatever this visioning thing they are creating will never effect my editing stats one way or the other. (More likely factors include the amount of spare time I have, family demands, & amount of material I can find with a reasonable effort to write articles with.) Or anyone else's.
However, I can come up with useful ways they could use resources to enhance -- & yes, funding to editors for research is one, but there are many more. What about research into UX, & sharing it online so we volunteers could use it? What about training in matters such as copyright & plagiarism? One project that would solve an issue plaguing en.wikipedia at the moment would be research into the effectiveness of cross-article ties? Right now I know of five ways to link articles to each other: hyperlinks, categories, navboxes, outlines, & portals. If someone were to analyze which of these produce the most traffic -- & why -- we could develop guidelines to make use of them. (And maybe determine objectively whether to keep portals as a general thing.) I bet such an analysis of Wikipedia data would take a month & at most $15,000 to accomplish, & might just head off a dispute from being handled by ArbCom.
I'll close with this thought: I bet if the Foundation were to lay off 20% or more of their staff, at worse no one would notice; at best, I bet those who were left would focus more on supporting the needs of the communities rather than chase after aspirational but abstract & unobtainable goals such as supporting diversity. (Last time I checked, regardless of our editor base no one seriously advocates an exclusively white cis-male hetrosexual computer-oriented Euro-American viewpoint for Wikipedia. Our membership is far more open & tolerant than we are given credit for.) -- llywrch ( talk) 23:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Because of recent cardiac arrest, I have to limit my Wikipedia editing to short bursts. WP:CANCER badly needs an update containing the latest financials. I invite anyone reading this to got to that page and make the needed changes. After that, I will once again write up a brief editorial summary for the year, and for that comments like the ones above are a great startling point. Please add more comments. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Are the spending increases presented in nominal terms, or are the figures adjusted for inflation? 207.161.86.162 ( talk) 04:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The Foundation is desperately short on funds and needs to increase revenue... more.
The earlier versions of the document were more blatant, but see M:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Increase the Sustainability of Our Movement. The number one strategy slot is to focus on finding more ways to jack up the revenue streams. Because apparently the Foundation is insufficiently sustainable under the current rate of revenue growth. Alsee ( talk) 19:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
There's no problem with Wikipedia. I propose a pagemove to Wikimedia_has_Cancer. Alsee ( talk) 19:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I made a userbox for advocacy of this issue:
![]() | This user is concerned about the WMF's unsustainable spending. |
User:Frogging101/Userboxes/WMF unsustainable spending
Please feel free to edit and improve it (I won't mind), or suggest improvements here or on its talk page. I just threw it together from the userbox template; I'm no design expert :) — Frogging101 ( talk) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
WMF→WPF | This user invites you to comment on the WMF renaming themselves. |
W?F | This Wikimedian opposes rebranding the WMF as Wikipedia. |
Re: the endowment (mentioned in the section above), is there any evidence that moving the endowment into a new independent non-profit organization would accomplish my stated recommendation to "structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the principal when times get bad"?
No matter what the overall legal framework is, if the WMF (I include in "WMF" anyone who has decision-making authority for both the WMF and the endowment) can look at a sudden drop in donations and decide to dip into the principle of the endowment rather than cutting spending, then the endowment is a compete failure at the first part of the stated goal at [1] of
The above is just another way of stating my "structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the principal when times get bad" recommendation, and I support it 100%.
Alas, the second part of [2] directly contradicts the first part:
It can only be one or the other, not both. Either it is "a permanent safekeeping fund to generate income to support the operations and activities of the Wikimedia projects in perpetuity" or it is a temporary place to store funds that can be "transferred to the Wikimedia Foundation" at any time.
Fun project: try to get either the WMF or Tides to reveal the exact wording of any legally binding contract that explains, in detail, exactly what has to happen for the principle of the endowment to be "transferred from Tides either to the Wikimedia Foundation or to other charitable organisations selected by the Wikimedia Foundation to further the Wikimedia mission".
Go ahead and try. I have repeatedly tried and failed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Year | Support and Revenue | Expenses | Net Assets at year end |
---|---|---|---|
2007–2008 | $5,032,981 | $3,540,724 | $5,178,168 |
2008–2009 | $8,658,006 | $5,617,236 | $8,231,767 |
2009–2010 | $17,979,312 | $10,266,793 | $14,542,731 |
2010–2011 | $24,785,092 | $17,889,794 | $24,192,144 |
Year | Support and Revenue | Expenses | Net Assets at year end |
---|---|---|---|
2015–2016 | $81,862,724 | $65,947,465 | $91,782,795 |
2016–2017 | $91,242,418 | $69,136,758 | $113,330,197 |
2017–2018 | $104,505,783 | $81,442,265 | $134,949,570 |
2018–2019 | $120,067,266 | $91,414,010 | $165,641,425 |
Hi. This essay is referenced at the bottom of < http://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html>, which may be of interest to those studying how bad Wikimedia Foundation Inc. has gotten. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I recently ran into the classic "Admiral's Yacht" argument.
The Admiral's Yacht argument goes like this: if anybody argues that the US is spending too much on the military (see note below) someone proposes that we stop buying bullets for the army or that we stop buying food for the navy. Nobody ever proposes getting rid of the general's private jet or the admiral's yacht.
Note: In 2019 the US spent 732 billion dollars (up from 649 billion in 2018) dollars on the military. The combined military budget of the next ten countries (Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and the UK) was 726 billion dollars, and the combined military budget of the rest of the world (139 countries) was $460 billion dollars. [3] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of $8.723 million: 'The remainder will be used to equitably fund the annual operating expenses of other Wikimedia affiliate organizations" From meta:Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2019-2020_-_frequently_asked_questions/id#This_year’s_report_says_that_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_provided_an_unconditional_grant_of_$8.723_million_to_Tides_Advocacy_for_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund._What_is_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund?. I find it ambiguous exactly what is going on, or if the operating expenses of the other affiliates include things that are not anticipated.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 05:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I've added a note about it to my Why Wikipedia is dying essay.
I've also created a new donor userbox linking to it:
![]() | This user was a donor to the Wikimedia Foundation before realising it was wasting his money. |
·· gracefool 💬 06:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The Board has approved moving the Endowment to a new standalone separate 501(c)(3) organization: wmf:Resolution:Wikimedia Endowment Structure, 2021. Looks like they're going to go forward with this. -- Yair rand ( talk) 19:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The WMF 2020 annual report says that 12% of its donated funds that year went towards fundraising. I'm curious how fundraising could have costed 12% of its annual income. It's worthy of note that internet hosting actually only costed $2M. 142.157.192.0 ( talk) 19:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Any donor should be seriously concerned about the noted refusals for financial accounting. The scenario of bankrupcy and acquisition by a mega-corporation is gravely disturbing. Exactly the fate of Mountain Equipment Coop, started in Vancouver by a group of outdoor enthusiasts. For several decades a wonderful success. Then it began to grow like a mushroom, opening stores across the country. Opposition to the growth encountered stonewalling. =8~| No problem for a few years. =8~| Then the economy shifted. MEC became bankrupt and was forced to sell assets to a private interest. I really don't want Wikimedia to fall to the same fate but, without accountability, that might be inevitable. =8~( Regards, ... PeterEasthope ( talk) 15:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Guy includes the alternative title: "Just because you have some money, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it."
The parallelism to a well known quotation of
Niklaus Wirth is striking: "... we do not consider it as good engineering practice to consume a resource lavishly just because it happens to be cheap."
The fundamental question: is a resource-money in this discussion-used wisely? Of all organizations, Wikimedia should have the ability to use resources wisely. Will that ability be exercised?
Regards, ...
PeterEasthope (
talk)
16:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Since we know that income to SanFran results in bad outcomes, have we collectively considered what we might do to stop that? What if we were able to get pieces published in newspapers and magazines telling everyone to stop donating? Every Christmastime Ma and Pa Kettle get scared that Wikipedia will be sold to Microsoft or some such; I doubt they hear from actual editors that their donations create perverse incentives. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Not a direct response — sorry! — But this was the most current post I have found so far. My question: Is there data / info / a set of articles, pages, etc. discussing what impact the pandemic has had on all of these issues? Left Central ( talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Wikipedia:CANCER and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15#Wikipedia:CANCER until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Mike Peel (
talk)
18:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Potentially relevant to @ Guy Macon's thesis.
Spurrious Correlation 10:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
PART 1: I don't really know how to edit wikipedia properly, so my apologies for the mess that this will look like. Your calculations contain an error. You assumed a constant number of internet users. Assuming that wikipedia use has grown at the same rate as general internet use, it makes perfect sense that hosting costs have been multiplied by 33; actually, it seems like they should have grown higher.
You say: "According to the WMF, Wikipedia (in all language editions) now receives 16 billion page views per month.[18] The WMF spends roughly $2 million USD per year on Internet hosting[11] and employs some 300 staff.[19] The modern Wikipedia hosts 11–12 times as many pages as it did in 2005,[20] but the WMF is spending 33 times as much on hosting,[21] has about 300 times as many employees, and is spending 1,250 times as much overall.[22] WMF's spending has gone up by 85% over the past three years.[23]"
Using this as a source: https://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm
I don't know if these calculations are from 2015 or 2022. Depending on when you measure, there were 3 to 4 times more users of the internet in 2015 than 2005. There are now 6 to 7 times more users of the internet than there were in 2005.
Assuming that hosting costs = users × pages (it... doesn't work that way... but, whatever, lets go with it) then you'd expect 11 to 12 times as many web pages, with 3 to 4 times more users, to result in 33 to 48 times as much in hosting costs. Using 2022 numbers, you'd expect 66 to 84 times as much in hosting costs.
Given that, there's no reason to assume that they're being profligate in their spending, at least as far as hosting is concerned.
PART 2: Your essay contains an implicit assumption that going from a great many volunteers + 1 employee to a great many volunteers + 300 employees is a terrible waste of money that could have easily been avoided by simply not hiring 299 people. There is no reason to believe that that is correct.
People need to eventually make money. Many volunteer projects fall apart because of this. If your revenue greatly exceeds your expenses, and you might lose an important volunteer becasue they need to go and make money instead of helping maintain a globally important piece of infrastructure, then you should probably pay that volunteer to keep them doing whatever important thing they have already been doing for years.
Given that, there's no reason to assume that they're being profligate in their spending, at least as far as employees are concerned.
ANTI-PART 3: I still find the lack of transparency or financial limits concerning. All I have done is prove that most of your evidence for wikipedia's financial imprudence doesn't work. I haven't actually proven that wikipedia is on sound financial footing, and am not making that claim. I am literally only saying that it's less clear than you think it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.215.66 ( talk) 22:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Unless someone objects or has a better version, I will change it to
From Taiwan News: [4]
"The collective also railed against Wikipedia for allegedly underrepresenting women in its articles, having a 'spending cancer,' engaging in deletionism, and committing POV skewing".
I would ask my loyal minions henchmen loyal opposition sycophants unindicted coconspirators arch-nemeses coadjutors bête noires abettors adversaries talk page stalkers talk page watchers...yeah, let's go with talk page watchers...reading this to please try to find any source where
Anonymous talks about Wikipedia having a "spending cancer". I searched and could only find sources talking about it, not the actual words used by Anonymous. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
20:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
New (2 days ago) article: The Wiki Piggy Bank: Wikimedia grows rich as Wikipedia donations are used for political causes
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4458111/the-wiki-piggy-bank
Related: User talk:BilledMammal/2023 Fundraising RfC
-- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 19:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
https://www.techspot.com/news/100590-elon-musk-goes-after-wikipedia-asks-where-all.html
-- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 15:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
File:Wikimedia Foundation's expenses evolution by rubrics in US Dollars.svg
What do you think? Worth adding?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
"Why will it require up to US$2.5 million to develop a movement strategy?"
Benjamin ( talk) 10:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
My bad, edited on your page, so sorry for that (did not see that this was not an open, official page).-- LH7605 ( talk) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
<!-- Please note that [[WP:ESSAYS]] states that "The author of a personal essay located in his or her user space has the right to revert any changes made to it by any other user". Everyone is free to make changes to this page, but I reserve the right to have the final say. -Guy Macon -->
"To all our readers in the U.S., It's a little awkward, so we'll get straight to the point: This Friday we humbly ask you to defend Wikipedia's independence. 98% of our readers don’t give; they simply look the other way. We depend on donations averaging $16.36 from the exceptional readers who give. If you donate just $2.75, the price of a coffee, Wikipedia could keep thriving. Most people donate for a simple reason—because Wikipedia is useful. If Wikipedia gave you $2.75 worth of knowledge this year, take a minute to donate. Show the volunteers that bring you access to reliable, neutral information that their work is the biggest act of generosity still alive on the Internet. Thank you."
The above is what you see if you simply read wikipedia without being a logged-in editor. It is, of course, on a black background, and on my monitor fills roughly 90% of the page.
Related:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
"Show the volunteers that"donations come from suckers who stupidly hand money to SanFran. Why don't we apportion part of Main Page to counterprogram? We could put a banner linking to our many assessments of WMF's finances. We could run DYK's about how much WMF pays for furniture and private travel. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Excellent essay!
Having said that, the statistics might better portray costs on a “per view” basis, which has risen, or a per viewer, or per editor. Gross expenditures have risen with an increase in readership and numbers of pages to be read. We need more editors. The latter needs have seemed bent to allow poorer editing/ knowledge of standards. Judging “ per article” than trying for a standard appearance or content.
As the software gets older, it becomes harder to modify.
We need continuing changes to compete, a challenge with old software and culture about appearance.
There are too many articles for the editors to maintain. Quality may be dropping. Easier editing vi new updates may be necessary.
There are too few notable politicians (! No, seriously), too many notable bands who barely make a living, much less, write notable music, too many mediocre sports figures, too many artists, too many articles about non-notable events or people. No longer do we see citation needed after questionable statements and too few of these same statements rm after a reasonable period of time.
We’ve bitten off more than we can chew. I’ve read through large histories that seem true but contain few, if any, citations.
So the essay is probably correct. We once thought that Vandals would destroy Wikipedia. It seems more like our own growth (“cancer”) will do the trick easily enough. Student7 ( talk) 17:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that your essay may explain the latest misguided acts by the Foundation: the attempt by T&S to enforce their version of a Code of Conduct. What we have in the Foundation are a surplus of people with no real purpose to their jobs, so they are constantly attempting to justify being employed, which leads to stuff like WP:FRAMGATE. And their endless process with creating their Plan 2030: they are dragging it out, either intentionally or unintentionally, because once its complete people will need to either find a new project or a new job. As far as I can see, whatever this visioning thing they are creating will never effect my editing stats one way or the other. (More likely factors include the amount of spare time I have, family demands, & amount of material I can find with a reasonable effort to write articles with.) Or anyone else's.
However, I can come up with useful ways they could use resources to enhance -- & yes, funding to editors for research is one, but there are many more. What about research into UX, & sharing it online so we volunteers could use it? What about training in matters such as copyright & plagiarism? One project that would solve an issue plaguing en.wikipedia at the moment would be research into the effectiveness of cross-article ties? Right now I know of five ways to link articles to each other: hyperlinks, categories, navboxes, outlines, & portals. If someone were to analyze which of these produce the most traffic -- & why -- we could develop guidelines to make use of them. (And maybe determine objectively whether to keep portals as a general thing.) I bet such an analysis of Wikipedia data would take a month & at most $15,000 to accomplish, & might just head off a dispute from being handled by ArbCom.
I'll close with this thought: I bet if the Foundation were to lay off 20% or more of their staff, at worse no one would notice; at best, I bet those who were left would focus more on supporting the needs of the communities rather than chase after aspirational but abstract & unobtainable goals such as supporting diversity. (Last time I checked, regardless of our editor base no one seriously advocates an exclusively white cis-male hetrosexual computer-oriented Euro-American viewpoint for Wikipedia. Our membership is far more open & tolerant than we are given credit for.) -- llywrch ( talk) 23:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Because of recent cardiac arrest, I have to limit my Wikipedia editing to short bursts. WP:CANCER badly needs an update containing the latest financials. I invite anyone reading this to got to that page and make the needed changes. After that, I will once again write up a brief editorial summary for the year, and for that comments like the ones above are a great startling point. Please add more comments. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Are the spending increases presented in nominal terms, or are the figures adjusted for inflation? 207.161.86.162 ( talk) 04:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The Foundation is desperately short on funds and needs to increase revenue... more.
The earlier versions of the document were more blatant, but see M:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Increase the Sustainability of Our Movement. The number one strategy slot is to focus on finding more ways to jack up the revenue streams. Because apparently the Foundation is insufficiently sustainable under the current rate of revenue growth. Alsee ( talk) 19:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
There's no problem with Wikipedia. I propose a pagemove to Wikimedia_has_Cancer. Alsee ( talk) 19:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I made a userbox for advocacy of this issue:
![]() | This user is concerned about the WMF's unsustainable spending. |
User:Frogging101/Userboxes/WMF unsustainable spending
Please feel free to edit and improve it (I won't mind), or suggest improvements here or on its talk page. I just threw it together from the userbox template; I'm no design expert :) — Frogging101 ( talk) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
WMF→WPF | This user invites you to comment on the WMF renaming themselves. |
W?F | This Wikimedian opposes rebranding the WMF as Wikipedia. |
Re: the endowment (mentioned in the section above), is there any evidence that moving the endowment into a new independent non-profit organization would accomplish my stated recommendation to "structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the principal when times get bad"?
No matter what the overall legal framework is, if the WMF (I include in "WMF" anyone who has decision-making authority for both the WMF and the endowment) can look at a sudden drop in donations and decide to dip into the principle of the endowment rather than cutting spending, then the endowment is a compete failure at the first part of the stated goal at [1] of
The above is just another way of stating my "structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the principal when times get bad" recommendation, and I support it 100%.
Alas, the second part of [2] directly contradicts the first part:
It can only be one or the other, not both. Either it is "a permanent safekeeping fund to generate income to support the operations and activities of the Wikimedia projects in perpetuity" or it is a temporary place to store funds that can be "transferred to the Wikimedia Foundation" at any time.
Fun project: try to get either the WMF or Tides to reveal the exact wording of any legally binding contract that explains, in detail, exactly what has to happen for the principle of the endowment to be "transferred from Tides either to the Wikimedia Foundation or to other charitable organisations selected by the Wikimedia Foundation to further the Wikimedia mission".
Go ahead and try. I have repeatedly tried and failed. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Year | Support and Revenue | Expenses | Net Assets at year end |
---|---|---|---|
2007–2008 | $5,032,981 | $3,540,724 | $5,178,168 |
2008–2009 | $8,658,006 | $5,617,236 | $8,231,767 |
2009–2010 | $17,979,312 | $10,266,793 | $14,542,731 |
2010–2011 | $24,785,092 | $17,889,794 | $24,192,144 |
Year | Support and Revenue | Expenses | Net Assets at year end |
---|---|---|---|
2015–2016 | $81,862,724 | $65,947,465 | $91,782,795 |
2016–2017 | $91,242,418 | $69,136,758 | $113,330,197 |
2017–2018 | $104,505,783 | $81,442,265 | $134,949,570 |
2018–2019 | $120,067,266 | $91,414,010 | $165,641,425 |
Hi. This essay is referenced at the bottom of < http://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html>, which may be of interest to those studying how bad Wikimedia Foundation Inc. has gotten. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I recently ran into the classic "Admiral's Yacht" argument.
The Admiral's Yacht argument goes like this: if anybody argues that the US is spending too much on the military (see note below) someone proposes that we stop buying bullets for the army or that we stop buying food for the navy. Nobody ever proposes getting rid of the general's private jet or the admiral's yacht.
Note: In 2019 the US spent 732 billion dollars (up from 649 billion in 2018) dollars on the military. The combined military budget of the next ten countries (Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and the UK) was 726 billion dollars, and the combined military budget of the rest of the world (139 countries) was $460 billion dollars. [3] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of $8.723 million: 'The remainder will be used to equitably fund the annual operating expenses of other Wikimedia affiliate organizations" From meta:Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2019-2020_-_frequently_asked_questions/id#This_year’s_report_says_that_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_provided_an_unconditional_grant_of_$8.723_million_to_Tides_Advocacy_for_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund._What_is_the_Wikimedia_Knowledge_Equity_Fund?. I find it ambiguous exactly what is going on, or if the operating expenses of the other affiliates include things that are not anticipated.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 05:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I've added a note about it to my Why Wikipedia is dying essay.
I've also created a new donor userbox linking to it:
![]() | This user was a donor to the Wikimedia Foundation before realising it was wasting his money. |
·· gracefool 💬 06:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The Board has approved moving the Endowment to a new standalone separate 501(c)(3) organization: wmf:Resolution:Wikimedia Endowment Structure, 2021. Looks like they're going to go forward with this. -- Yair rand ( talk) 19:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The WMF 2020 annual report says that 12% of its donated funds that year went towards fundraising. I'm curious how fundraising could have costed 12% of its annual income. It's worthy of note that internet hosting actually only costed $2M. 142.157.192.0 ( talk) 19:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Any donor should be seriously concerned about the noted refusals for financial accounting. The scenario of bankrupcy and acquisition by a mega-corporation is gravely disturbing. Exactly the fate of Mountain Equipment Coop, started in Vancouver by a group of outdoor enthusiasts. For several decades a wonderful success. Then it began to grow like a mushroom, opening stores across the country. Opposition to the growth encountered stonewalling. =8~| No problem for a few years. =8~| Then the economy shifted. MEC became bankrupt and was forced to sell assets to a private interest. I really don't want Wikimedia to fall to the same fate but, without accountability, that might be inevitable. =8~( Regards, ... PeterEasthope ( talk) 15:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Guy includes the alternative title: "Just because you have some money, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it."
The parallelism to a well known quotation of
Niklaus Wirth is striking: "... we do not consider it as good engineering practice to consume a resource lavishly just because it happens to be cheap."
The fundamental question: is a resource-money in this discussion-used wisely? Of all organizations, Wikimedia should have the ability to use resources wisely. Will that ability be exercised?
Regards, ...
PeterEasthope (
talk)
16:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Since we know that income to SanFran results in bad outcomes, have we collectively considered what we might do to stop that? What if we were able to get pieces published in newspapers and magazines telling everyone to stop donating? Every Christmastime Ma and Pa Kettle get scared that Wikipedia will be sold to Microsoft or some such; I doubt they hear from actual editors that their donations create perverse incentives. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Not a direct response — sorry! — But this was the most current post I have found so far. My question: Is there data / info / a set of articles, pages, etc. discussing what impact the pandemic has had on all of these issues? Left Central ( talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Wikipedia:CANCER and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15#Wikipedia:CANCER until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Mike Peel (
talk)
18:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Potentially relevant to @ Guy Macon's thesis.
Spurrious Correlation 10:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
PART 1: I don't really know how to edit wikipedia properly, so my apologies for the mess that this will look like. Your calculations contain an error. You assumed a constant number of internet users. Assuming that wikipedia use has grown at the same rate as general internet use, it makes perfect sense that hosting costs have been multiplied by 33; actually, it seems like they should have grown higher.
You say: "According to the WMF, Wikipedia (in all language editions) now receives 16 billion page views per month.[18] The WMF spends roughly $2 million USD per year on Internet hosting[11] and employs some 300 staff.[19] The modern Wikipedia hosts 11–12 times as many pages as it did in 2005,[20] but the WMF is spending 33 times as much on hosting,[21] has about 300 times as many employees, and is spending 1,250 times as much overall.[22] WMF's spending has gone up by 85% over the past three years.[23]"
Using this as a source: https://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm
I don't know if these calculations are from 2015 or 2022. Depending on when you measure, there were 3 to 4 times more users of the internet in 2015 than 2005. There are now 6 to 7 times more users of the internet than there were in 2005.
Assuming that hosting costs = users × pages (it... doesn't work that way... but, whatever, lets go with it) then you'd expect 11 to 12 times as many web pages, with 3 to 4 times more users, to result in 33 to 48 times as much in hosting costs. Using 2022 numbers, you'd expect 66 to 84 times as much in hosting costs.
Given that, there's no reason to assume that they're being profligate in their spending, at least as far as hosting is concerned.
PART 2: Your essay contains an implicit assumption that going from a great many volunteers + 1 employee to a great many volunteers + 300 employees is a terrible waste of money that could have easily been avoided by simply not hiring 299 people. There is no reason to believe that that is correct.
People need to eventually make money. Many volunteer projects fall apart because of this. If your revenue greatly exceeds your expenses, and you might lose an important volunteer becasue they need to go and make money instead of helping maintain a globally important piece of infrastructure, then you should probably pay that volunteer to keep them doing whatever important thing they have already been doing for years.
Given that, there's no reason to assume that they're being profligate in their spending, at least as far as employees are concerned.
ANTI-PART 3: I still find the lack of transparency or financial limits concerning. All I have done is prove that most of your evidence for wikipedia's financial imprudence doesn't work. I haven't actually proven that wikipedia is on sound financial footing, and am not making that claim. I am literally only saying that it's less clear than you think it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.215.66 ( talk) 22:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Unless someone objects or has a better version, I will change it to
From Taiwan News: [4]
"The collective also railed against Wikipedia for allegedly underrepresenting women in its articles, having a 'spending cancer,' engaging in deletionism, and committing POV skewing".
I would ask my loyal minions henchmen loyal opposition sycophants unindicted coconspirators arch-nemeses coadjutors bête noires abettors adversaries talk page stalkers talk page watchers...yeah, let's go with talk page watchers...reading this to please try to find any source where
Anonymous talks about Wikipedia having a "spending cancer". I searched and could only find sources talking about it, not the actual words used by Anonymous. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
20:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
New (2 days ago) article: The Wiki Piggy Bank: Wikimedia grows rich as Wikipedia donations are used for political causes
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4458111/the-wiki-piggy-bank
Related: User talk:BilledMammal/2023 Fundraising RfC
-- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 19:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
https://www.techspot.com/news/100590-elon-musk-goes-after-wikipedia-asks-where-all.html
-- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 15:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)