Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday December 17 2016, @07:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the rollin'-in-the-dough dept.

The Wikimedia Foundation, which controls Wikipedia and other popular MediaWiki projects, has met its "December sprint" fundraising target:

This week the Wikimedia Foundation smashed through the $25m target it had set for its "December sprint" – with a full 15 days of the month left. On December 3, Wiki's globetrotting figurehead Jimmy Wales promised that as soon as the Wikimedia Foundation met the target it had set for its traditional year-end fundraising drive, it would cease making the intrusive appeals. "We would still stop the fundraiser if enough money were raised in shorter than the planned time," Jimmy Wales promised on December 2. But there's no sign of the Foundation doing that, yet.

The WMF has now raised $25,530,943.01 in December, and $51,182,044.37 this year. That means it's on course to smash 2015's fundraising record of $53,756,012.58. [...] "It's important here to remember that the Wikimedia Foundation has nothing to do with writing or checking the content of Wikipedia. All that is done by unpaid volunteers," writes former Wikipedia Signpost co-editor Andreas Kolbe in a detailed analysis of the WMF finances.

Although the fundraising appeal states alarmingly that your cash is urgently required to "keep Wikipedia online", this is not the full picture. (As a WMF staff member admitted in 2014: "The urgency and alarm of the copy is not commensurate with my [admittedly limited] understanding of our financial situation".) Each year, the Foundation raises far more than it costs to operate the site, estimated at $3m a year. The clue comes in the full quote from the WMF, that cash is needed to "keep Wikipedia online and growing". The Foundation's own reports reveal what exactly it is that's growing.

That is one rich beggar.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @08:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @08:15PM (#442503)

    I used to consider donating them money, but I realized more money won't help them (less might though).

    If they were trying to keep their operating costs down, I might contribute to their opensource software efforts (Improve their caching layers, or help them get off of PHP), but the don't seem to be spending a significant part of the money on things I care about.

    If they were developing wiki serving software unikernels in C++ (include OS!), that would be cool, or if they were working on censor resistant collaborative editing, or distributed consensus I would support that.

    If they were working with universities to help get people to know how to edit and improve Wikipedia I would support that.

    However the plea for money is not associated with any intended use for the money, and they have far more money than their operating costs. Its a big claim about how they don't have ads right next to the PayPal and Amazon branded buttons to donate. Really, no ads?

    I really value wikipedia and wikimedia, and that's why I'm not donating money to them. They don't need it and would be better off without it. If they convince me otherwise fine, but for now I see no reason to donate.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Saturday December 17 2016, @08:18PM

    by Francis (5544) on Saturday December 17 2016, @08:18PM (#442504)

    The reason I don't donate to them is that they have no shortage of money. They already have enough money to fund operations for years to come without any additional funding. So, what's the point of giving them more?

    There are plenty of other worthy causes out there, even if you restrict it to similar ones, there's still a ton of other ones available.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Saturday December 17 2016, @08:32PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday December 17 2016, @08:32PM (#442509) Journal

      It's the same deal with the Mozilla Foundation. Sure, they spend a few million here and there on worthwhile development of Firefox and other projects, and help to prevent a browser monoculture even as their browsers have fallen out of favor. But a lot gets thrown at the wall or funds complete bureaucratic bullshit.

      The difference is that Mozilla wastes hundreds of millions of search deal dollars rather than begging (AFAIK). Wikimedia misrepresents their need for cash to fleece the public. As we can see, they are partially transparent about this, and they've also demonstrated how little money it takes to run one of the world's most visited websites (to be fair, a lot of traffic is text, but they have images and videos as well).

      Luckily for Mozilla, they have secured a tremendous amount of funding [arstechnica.com] from the dying husk that is Yahoo! If they invest and save some of that money, they could continue to exist perpetually, and they have a good chance of inking some search deals after 2019.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @10:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @10:04PM (#442524)

      > They already have enough money to fund operations for years to come without any additional funding.

      That's bullshit. Their operational costs are upwards of $65M/yr. [wikipedia.org]
      Yeah, I know, you don't think its spent wisely. Easy to say for someone with no actual responsibilities.

      Go ahead, keep your money, but don't pretend you are doing it out of any sort of principled objection. Its just the same old internet ignorance and nihilism. Wikipedia is one of the internet's greatest successes, bitching that its flawed is to forget that nothing of any significant value is even close to flawless.

      • (Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday December 17 2016, @10:40PM

        by Francis (5544) on Saturday December 17 2016, @10:40PM (#442533)

        This is from a few years ago, but if they were lying about needing money then, why should I believe them now?

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ [theregister.co.uk]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @11:06PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @11:06PM (#442542)

          "Lying" lol.
          Ok, clearly you've made up your mind independent of unbiased analysis.
          A bitch piece by the register is pretty hollow justification, but whatever you need to hang your hat on so you can feel sanctimonious.
          Enjoy your facebook, snapchat, g+ and all the other data silos that sell your privacy without permission in exchange for you having a place to post scraps.

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Sunday December 18 2016, @01:47AM

            by Francis (5544) on Sunday December 18 2016, @01:47AM (#442575)

            As the other AC pointed out, I'm dead on here. That's an obscene amount of money for a nonprofit to have on hand. There's just no excuse for them to be engaged in the heavy handed fundraising when they aren't having any budget or income problems.

            Save it for a time when they have less than a year's worth of funding squirreled away.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @11:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @11:14PM (#442544)

          Just look at their financial statements: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/43/Wikimedia_Foundation_Audit_Report_-_FY15-16.pdf [wikimedia.org]

          They have over $90 million in net assets and $81 million in revenue, with $77 million being donations. Their expenses are $66 million, with $11 million being "awards and grants" and $32 million being salaries and wages broken down as following.

          Programs administrative Fund-raising Total
          24,189,343 4,917,307 2,607,311 31,713,961

          Worth noting, if you do the math, the average salary is around $150,000. I could get more specific, but the 990 is unavailable. The biggest growth, year-over-year, is in the salaries of employees however.

          • (Score: 1) by snmygos on Sunday December 18 2016, @01:20PM

            by snmygos (6274) on Sunday December 18 2016, @01:20PM (#442673)

            $32 000 000 for salaries is a big amount for a site that is entirely maintained by benevolants. Some guys here must be very rich.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @09:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @09:48PM (#442519)

    I contribute, so I don't feel the need to give any money.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @03:17AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @03:17AM (#442595)

    Get people to edit wikpedia? Ahahahaha