Post AWkdnid6EUlfJVKSWW by xerz@fedi.xerz.one
 (DIR) More posts by xerz@fedi.xerz.one
 (DIR) Post #AWkZpKYIK8BzOvavC4 by theresnotime@iscurrently.live
       2023-06-16T13:10:13Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       A very please be quiet to the boring people who turn up in the replies of any post which mentions donating money to Wikipedia and proceeds to whine that the Foundation has "tons of money".The numbers you quote often come from the Wikimedia Endowment Fund, which WMF isn't allowed to just use for whatever. It's to ensure the longevity of the "sum of all human knowledge".
       
 (DIR) Post #AWkZpLPT8Qj83qTO4m by theresnotime@iscurrently.live
       2023-06-16T13:23:28Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       nb. That doesn't mean you have to agree with how the money is spent (I sure have opinions on that!), and if you're interested in trying to change that you should get involved — but they're not swimming in cash.
       
 (DIR) Post #AWkZpM3WjUlm45DNVw by xerz@fedi.xerz.one
       2023-06-16T13:27:15.708020Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @theresnotime Isn't the problem that the growth in spending is not proportional to the resources needed to keep a PHP wiki made of volunteers alive? Would be nice to have double-checked numbers to see how much is justified and how much is for the sake of it
       
 (DIR) Post #AWkdnhepqYYuIb8Kae by bubbline@tech.lgbt
       2023-06-16T13:46:33Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @xerz @theresnotime "a PHP wiki" is definitely one way to describe Wikipedia, if you don't feel like mentioning how it's probably one of the websites receiving the most traffic in the world
       
 (DIR) Post #AWkdnid6EUlfJVKSWW by xerz@fedi.xerz.one
       2023-06-16T14:10:13.945627Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @bubbline @theresnotime I mean, both are true. The thing is I have no idea how efficiently the resources towards server farms are allocated and how big is that portion of the pie.
       
 (DIR) Post #AWkfaFaZ5vfnO9qhVY by bubbline@tech.lgbt
       2023-06-16T14:19:03Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @xerz @theresnotime Sure, more transparency is always good, and I don't know how transparent wikipedia is or isn't, though I'd assume if there was actual misuse of funds we'd hear of it somehow.But I'd point at the fact that it's a miracle it even exists and isn't owned by a big corporation monetising it. Imagine the alternative if it was owned by Google or something. Or just look at the current dismantling of web 2.0.Wikipedia honestly deserves our trust after all this time.
       
 (DIR) Post #AWkfaGZtPujISMXg6C by xerz@fedi.xerz.one
       2023-06-16T14:32:00.325962Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @bubbline @theresnotime OK, I'm now on my computer. So I do am aware of three reports: the transparency report (irrelevant to this case), the financial statements, and the annual report. This might sound like incredible work in itself, but keep in mind this is the one thing every NGO and corporation needs to do as well as possible no matter what.https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/There's not a lot here to take a look at... no breakdown nor reports on how well the spending has been budgeted and executed, so all I know is that during July 1, 2021–June 30, 2022, they spent- $2,704,842 in hosting- $11,853,366 in "other operating expenses"- $16,881,184 in "professional service expenses" (where paid volunteers go afaik)...out of $145,970,915 total.