Study Reveals Wikimedia Foundation Is 'Awash In Money'

New submitter Harold Dumbacher writes: Few things seen on Wikipedia aggravate its users more than the annual fundraising banners. Yet millions of people continue to contribute, seeming to think that Wikipedia will "go offline" if they aren't given more donations. Yet as a new Wikipediocracy blog post reveals, the Wikimedia Foundation is rolling in dough — $53 million in net assets as of this year (that's actual hard sitting-around currency, currently put into various investment vehicles). Meanwhile it only costs about $2.5 million to actually keep Wikimedia project servers online and handling user traffic. The rest of the WMF's annual donations go for "staff salaries, travel and miscellaneous." And evidently, many people are growing disgruntled with this ongoing state of affairs, even Wikimedia staff who benefit from it.

Comments

So?

[Ol Olsoc]

Seems like it is a successful enterprise.

I'd suggest that the folks who are outraged by this start their own wiki, run with all volunteers, and pass the hat among themselves so that the servers can be fed.

Re:So?

[pla]

Yes, they most certainly do. Every nonprofit on the planet has the long-term goal of having an endowment large enough that they can focus on their core mission rather than bullshit fundraising drives. In order to do that sustainably, they need to have an endowment approximately 25x their annual operating budget, plain and simple.

Nonprofits still function as corporate entities that need to pay the bills, they just don't have - as you might infer from their name - "profit" as their primary mission.

I have my objections to Wiki's policies (primarily editorial), but the fact that they have targeted a self-sustaining endowment, I don't fault them for - Quite the opposite, I give them credit for actually having a viable business plan. Yes, "business plan" - Nonprofits still need one of those, like it or not.

Re:So?

[phantomfive]

In order to do that sustainably, they need to have an endowment approximately 25x their annual operating budget, plain and simple.

And that sounds optimistic to me.

Re:So?

[Herkum01]

The problem with this,

• There is not hard limit on what enough actually is, so they will continue to ask for money. In fact it is almost its own separate business. Just ask lobbyists.
• Someone will spend it, or lose it on things not related to the goals for the organization. Hurting the it in the long-run.

Re:So?

[sinij]

Nonprofits don't generate shareholder returns, this doesn't mean that they are prevented from enriching executives via compensation packages.

Re:So?

[AthanasiusKircher]

I have my objections to Wiki's policies (primarily editorial), but the fact that they have targeted a self-sustaining endowment, I don't fault them for - Quite the opposite, I give them credit for actually having a viable business plan.

I completely agree with your sentiment here. But the question is not whether that's a good business plan, but rather whether those who have donate that money actually realize they are giving money to support an endowment and a bunch of ancillary services and staff, rather than barely keeping the site "going for another year."

See last year's fundraising message:

DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS: This week we ask our readers to help us. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We survive on donations averaging about $15. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. Yep, that's about the price of buying a programmer a coffee. We're a small non-profit with costs of a top website: servers, staff and programs. Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park where we can all go to think and learn. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online and ad-free another year. Thank you.

When you include words and phrases like we survive, small non-profit with costs of a top website: servers..., keep it online... another year, etc., it implies that (1) you're barely making it by ("survive"), (2) the majority of your "small non-profit" funds must be going directly into infrastructure when they're not, and (3) if you don't donate now, we may not be able to go on for "another year."

All of that is misleading. At no point do they appeal to an idea that they are trying to build a sustainable long-term endowment or something. I'm sure some people would donate to that too. But right now their rhetoric doesn't match their financial situation or goals... and that's a serious problem when you're trying to convince people to donate.

(And there's also the problem that most people don't realize that the Wikimedia foundation contributes almost nothing toward maintaining, improving, or policing the content that people actually visit the site for -- all the real work for the actual content is generated by volunteers.)

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonprofits still function as corporate entities that need to pay the bills, they just don't have - as you might infer from their name - "profit" as their primary mission.

When I volunteered for a non-profit (a fire house), our treasurer (a lawyer) would state that any non-profit company that doesn't have debt is "dead in the water." The more I think about that statement, the more validity it has. So if they aren't self-sustaining, they will always "need to be broke." Problem is when people find out they aren't....backlash.

Re:So?

[rockout]

You're right that a lot of that is misleading - but that's framing it in the worst-sounding way. It's really just advertising, although a different sort of advertising. If they said, "Hey we have $53 million in the bank, but the reality is, we need more funding in order to keep our organization going, because if we don't have sustainable funding we may go under in 10 years", how many people would donate?

The wording that they use is carefully chosen to try to get the maximum amount of donations. I'm okay with that.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at some university presidents and their absolutely spartan lifestyles due to working for non-profits, such as multimillion dollar homes purchased for them by the university.

Where does this idea come from that non-profits are some sort of money-eschewing order of monks? Hell, even THOSE groups in many cases grew to be known for how wealthy they got, and the Knights Templar are considered by many to be the origin of modern banking... Most non-profits will happily gobble up as much cash as they can; the only real difference is that they don't pay taxes (in most cases, or at least as many) or dividends to shareholders.

Re: So?

[bill_mcgonigle]

translation: "If they were honest how much would people contribute "?

Just because ethical behavior is harder doesn't excuse unethical (immoral: deception) behavior.

Re:So?

[Vegan Cyclist]

Some do... MEC (Mountain Equipment Co-op) here in Canada sometimes returns dividends to members, I got $50 back this year as an example. Granted, this isn't typical, and most non-profits don't operate as a chain of stores..but it doesn't happen. (Point being: lots of different types of non-profits.)

Re:So?

[MrNaz]

Tell that to Harvard.

Re:So?

[gsslay]

Have you ever read or seen an appeal for money from any charity or not-for profit?

They all do this, because if they didn't the donations would be drastically lower. People simply aren't interested in donating to a "long term sustainable investment endowment", they need prompted into action through a suggestion that it's a very immediate need, or indeed emergency.

Re:So?

[mrchaotica]

Every nonprofit on the planet has the long-term goal of having an endowment large enough that they can focus on their core mission rather than bullshit fundraising drives. In order to do that sustainably, they need to have an endowment approximately 25x their annual operating budget, plain and simple.

Okay, so you're saying that Wikipedia will raise another $9.5 million* and then stop, right? If they do that, then I won't complain.

Of course, they're almost certainly not going to stop. Instead, they'll just increase Jimmy Wales' compensation (among other silly things) and keep badgering users, because that's what all non-profits actually do.

(* 25 * $2.5M = $62.5M, $62.5M - $53M (the amount they already have) = $9.5M still needed)

Re:So?

[Grishnakh]

Just look at some university presidents and their absolutely spartan lifestyles due to working for non-profits, such as multimillion dollar homes purchased for them by the university.

While there's definitely some largess going on at many universities these days, those multimillion dollar homes are not purchased for presidents by the universities. They're owned by the universities, and the presidents are allowed to live there as long as they're president. It's free housing. When the president gets another job or retires, he has to leave the mansion and go find himself another place to live, so that the new president can live in the mansion.

Are you going to complain about the President of the US getting to live in the White House for free too?

Re:So?

[sgladfelter]

Yeah, I've heard the same anecdote about the size of Harvard's endowment. The thing is, its annual budget is 4.2 billion, so its endowment is less than 10x - not even close to 25x. So this doesn't put Harvard in "Koch Brothers" rich territory, more like "Apple" rich.

Re:So?

[pla]

(* 25 * $2.5M = $62.5M, $62.5M - $53M (the amount they already have) = $9.5M still needed)

Try another $522M - The FP's "$2.5 million" counts as an extremely misleading number from someone with an obvious agenda. That $2.5 million literally only covers bandwidth and electricity; WMF actually has an annual budget of almost 10x that, $23M.


Okay, so you're saying that Wikipedia will raise another $9.5 million* and then stop, right? If they do that, then I won't complain.

Would they stop begging for donations if someone handed them a check for half a billion tomorrow? I can't say even if they should... That would depend on whether they have aspirations to make the WMF something even bigger and currently just don't have the funding to take it to the next level. If not, then yes, I'd like to think they would invest it and operate off the proceeds.

Realistically though, it amounts to a moot point. They won't ever reach that level of funds in reserve; but the closer they get, the more their investment yield reduces the need for immediate donations on a quarterly basis.

Re:So?

[MrNaz]

Also, Harvard isn't the only educational institution with 11 figure endowments.

Re:So?

[nicolastheadept]

That's a co-op, not a non-profit

Re:So?

[lgw]

Try another $522M - The FP's "$2.5 million" counts as an extremely misleading number from someone with an obvious agenda. That $2.5 million literally only covers bandwidth and electricity; WMF actually has an annual budget of almost 10x that, $23M.

Exactly! You have to include the $20 million/year "Jimmy Wales junket fund" (as VallyWag called it for years while reporting on his exotic trips). Hookers and blow don't buy themselves, you know.

Re:So?

[phantomfive]

The thing is, its annual budget is 4.2 billion

Wow, wtf are they spending money on?

Re:So?

[Ol Olsoc]

non-profits don't work that way.

I'm the VP of a Non Profit Corporation. You are wrong.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

hookers & blow

Re: So?

[Ol Olsoc]

translation: "If they were honest how much would people contribute "?

Just because ethical behavior is harder doesn't excuse unethical (immoral: deception) behavior.

It's not unethical behavior, it's just what you have to do if you are a non profit.

You just can't start every year at 0 dollars, and work your way up from there. You'll be a successful NP for about a month.

And if you think that Wikipedia is unethical, then every non-profit I know if is unethical in your estimation.

I'm VP of a non-profit, and yes, we have bank accounts and investments. We also have to deal with variable costs every year. So while one moment, we may be "unethical" in your estimation, because we have money in the bank, and still ask for money, at other times, we are looking at becoming quite quickly poor. Most all of our investments have to enjoy high liquidity, because they might be gone in a week. Or they might still be here. That's life in the unethical Non-profit world. Not all as black and white as you might want it to be.

Re:So?

[Ol Olsoc]

People simply aren't interested in donating to a "long term sustainable investment endowment", they need prompted into action through a suggestion that it's a very immediate need, or indeed emergency.

Absolutely. And the main purpose of fund raising is to do what the non-profit is incorporated to do, so if you are raising awareness of (whatever) you are going to try to get donations by telling people you was raising awareness of (whatever)

And if the NP is successful, then that's good, not bad.

Re:So?

[Ol Olsoc]

Okay, so you're saying that Wikipedia will raise another $9.5 million* and then stop, right? If they do that, then I won't complain.

Well of course they aren't going to stop. The world doesn't stand still, and that money might be put to good use.

As long as they aren't doing something illegal or stupid, why on earth would you care what they have in the bank? Is that money taken out of your personal pocket?

Even moreso, tell me what Wikipedias annual operating expenses are, and if you know that it is a fixed figure, and won't change.

You really need to get involved in a non profit - then you can give good accurate and ethical advice about them. I'm the VP of one, and you are way off base here. The only time you stop asking for money is when the corporation dissolves. Before you decide that I'm one of those shysters getting fat off of donations, I'm completely unpaid.

Re:So?

[youngone]

I'm OK with it too, I'm also happy to give them some money. I'm old enough to remember the days when gaining access to Wikipedia type info cost many multiples of my Dad's monthly pay, and took up a whole book shelf at home. It also wasn't updated all the time.

Re: So?

[rockout]

You act as if there's only "honest" and "dishonest" and the line between that black-and-white in this case is universally agreed upon by everyone. Surely you know that's ridiculous.

Re: So?

[Ol Olsoc]

Yes, all non-profits are unethical. I think they shouldn't exist at all. You get major financial advantages I don't get to have because you're doing god's work or whatever. Pay your goddamned taxes like the rest of us and maybe you'd quit hearing us bitch.

Sorry, I'm not part of a religious non profit. Sounds like you think normal businesses are ethical? Think again.

Re:So?

[tehcyder]

Have you ever read or seen an appeal for money from any charity or not-for profit?

They all do this, because if they didn't the donations would be drastically lower. People simply aren't interested in donating to a "long term sustainable investment endowment", they need prompted into action through a suggestion that it's a very immediate need, or indeed emergency.

Exactly. When you have something like the Nepal earthquake, donations people make aren't going to some new organisation set up that morning, and you don't expect them to give back any money left over when the emergency is over.

Re:So?

[tehcyder]

You have to include the $20 million/year "Jimmy Wales junket fund" (as VallyWag called it for years while reporting on his exotic trips). Hookers and blow don't buy themselves, you know.

And how exactly do you know this is true?

Don't organisations of this size have to be audited in the US?

Re:So?

[Vegan Cyclist]

In Canada, co-ops fit under the 'non-profit' umbrella, as far as I'm aware. That's how they're taxed, and governs how they are expected to operate.

Re:So?

[anyGould]

I have my objections to Wiki's policies (primarily editorial), but the fact that they have targeted a self-sustaining endowment, I don't fault them for - Quite the opposite, I give them credit for actually having a viable business plan. Yes, "business plan" - Nonprofits still need one of those, like it or not.

I don't fault them either - but I'd rather they sell it that way (as "if we get $X, it's all lollypops and candy from here on out!") rather than "the lights could go out AT ANY MOMENT unless you give us money RIGHT NOW". Because right now, they've got 20 years of bank, and probably longer if they invest it wisely. Not to mention that they're over 80% of the way to their 25x figure, so the lights ain't going out any time soon.

Re:So?

[anyGould]

Where does this idea come from that non-profits are some sort of money-eschewing order of monks?

Easy - because they're "not profit". Right in the title. And if they're not making a profit, they're not bringing in a lot of money, obviously

Seriously - there's a lot of people out there who haven't figured out that you can "not show a profit" by simply raising expenses to match income. It's why NCAA has sponsorships but manages to never show a profit.

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

[turkeydance]

a Pyle of money.

Re:Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

[freeze128]

Your post is actually more funny than you got credit for. Jim Nabors applauds you.

Investments?

[jythie]

Wait, so is this liquid cash or invested money? This is a rather important distinction since non-profits often depend heavily on interest from investments as their primary stable source of income. So if this is the later case, it sounds like responsible stewardship, at least that piece of it since I gather the amature nature of administration shows through in other areas.

Re:Investments?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article. $20 million is spent on salaries (for staff that produce nothing -- they didn't produce the content) and they only were able to obtain 1% gain from investments. Doesn't sound like responsible stewardship.

Re:Investments?

[gstoddart]

Except apparently the "primary stable source of income" is continuously begging and saying "if you don't donate we'll go offline".

From the sounds of it, they've already reached a stable source of income, but keep begging for more.

Re:Investments?

[AthanasiusKircher]

This is a rather important distinction since non-profits often depend heavily on interest from investments as their primary stable source of income. So if this is the later case, it sounds like responsible stewardship

While it's possible that this is the case, I believe the objection here may be to the way that Wikipedia is advertising its fundraising drives.

It's one thing to say "Please donate to us so we can have a suitable sustainable endowment to keep this website running forever" and it's a different thing to say "Please donate now, or this site might go down imminently because we can't pay our bills."

According to an older story at Wikipediocracy, the objections seem to be partly that fundraising campaigns are expressed in a dire "We need money now or the lights go off!" kind of tone, when that really isn't the situation.

The first goal of raising an endowment is certainly a laudable one for any sustainable non-profit. The question is whether they're being honest with their donors about what their situation is and what they are going to do with the money.

Re:Investments?

[argStyopa]

The report is pretty confused: "...that's actual hard sitting-around currency, currently put into various investment vehicles..."

Either it's a - liquid cash, or b - sitting in investments.

My guess is that what they meant to say is that it's a, liquid cash, that's probably been dumped into something like staggered or rolling quarterly cd's or something so it's earning something but isn't locked away and out of reach for an unreasonable amount of time.

So functionally, liquid cash as those sorts of investment vehicles pretty much pay nothing.

Re:Investments?

[pla]

They have annual expenses of roughly $23 million (do you go to work for free every day?), not just the $2.5 they spend to physically keep the lights on. That makes their current position comfortable but still not self-sustaining.

Realistically, they need 13+ times that much in investments to have a self-sustaining income stream.

Re:Investments?

[rockmuelle]

$20M on salaries sounds about right for an organization with a complex IT infrastructure and global reach. Not sure what the outrage is here, unless you're expecting the people that keep the site up to work for free.

If they were developing the content as well, I'd expect their salaries to be in the $30-50M range. $1M probably gives you 6-8 editorial FTEs, so $30-50M would give you the few hundred editors and their support staff necessary to produce the content. The numbers are different for IT staff - 4-5 FTEs/$1M, so $20M could cover 80 technical staff and a few managers. Of course, there's all other staff as well, so the technical staff numbers are probably lower.

Other posts have already pointed out that $50M in the bank is a smart move for a non-profit.

-Chris

Re:Investments?

[rockout]

Look, they're planning for the future. If they said, "Please donate or the lights will go out in 10 years", the numbers of donations would go down drastically.

They're appealing to as massive an audience as they can to donate small amounts of money, and sure, they're using mass-appeal language to do it. I'd rather see that than have a few billionaires being lobbied to keep Wikipedia going. It makes sense.

Re:Investments?

[UnknownSoldier]

Wikipedia is like the boy crying wolf

If they limited fund-raising banners to once a year that would be OK.

Constantly "spamming" banner ads asking for money is tiresome.

Is there a breakdown of their ~$25 million on salaries so we can see exactly where ALL the money is going each year?

Re:Investments?

[drkstr1]

Fraudulent advertising should be a crime (and is actually on a very short list of things I believe to be criminal).

Re:Investments?

[The-Ixian]

Every single pledge drive I have ever heard includes a little FUD. If you don't sound a little alarmist, nobody would ever donate...
 
Same relationship that organized religion has with Hell...

Re:Investments?

[Paradoks]

(do you go to work for free every day?)

This is probably not the best argument when we're talking about Wikipedia.

Re:Investments?

[rockout]

In the list of fraudelent advertising I've seen in just the past year, ranked by how offensive they are, I'm not sure the Wikipedia appeals for money would even make the top 1000.

Re:Investments?

[tehcyder]

The report is pretty confused: "...that's actual hard sitting-around currency, currently put into various investment vehicles..."

Either it's a - liquid cash, or b - sitting in investments.

The terminology nowadays is "cash or cash equivalents" which includes actual liquid cash (bags of coins and bank current accounts), and short term investments. In the UK (which follows international accounting standards) this means investments that will mature in less than three months.

If it matures after more than three months it's an investment.

You're fantastically unlikely to be made bankrupt by a creditor if you have liquid funds that you can access within three months, so it's a reasonable definition.

so what?

[martiniturbide]

Even if they are sitting on money and over-expend it, all their content is Creative Commons, anybody can "Fork Wikipedia". The contribution to Wikipedia to the present days is still there and it is huge. It will be desirable that the extra money will be expended to enrich the content and not waste it, but if we compare how politicians use money today, I prefer that it is being waste on a collaborative open project. I really hope that the same thing happens to Archive.org someday, that they will be able to sit on money to improve the "library".

Re:so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The concern is that Wikipedia will turn into another United Way. Continually asking for large money goals during fund drives in order to pay exorbitant salaries to the executive staff. All the while, having plenty of money to perform its established goals.

Re:so what?

[BarbaraHudson]

Hey, it works for many in the church biz ...

Re:so what?

[MightyYar]

That's not a fair characterization of the United Way. They do all of the overhead fundraising stuff so that smaller charities don't have to. Then those smaller charities come out fantastic on those brain-dead "overhead" rankings, because someone else spent the overhead money.

Similar criticisms leveled at the Red Cross are misguided. The Red Cross is huge and has corresponding overhead, but they have to stockpile massive amounts of stuff and then just sit on it waiting for something to happen. It's never going to be "efficient", but they are the main and first"boots on the ground" at every major disaster, and they are at every residential fire with blankets, clothes, and shelter. Sometimes it is worth paying people who are good at their jobs.

Re:so what?

[martiniturbide]

But I think that there is a difference between a regular company paying exorbitant salaries that has the IP and full control of their product and another "company" that his assets is Creative Commons and that can be "legally stole" (copied) by other one. It is good to put under the scope the executive staff salaries to make some preassure, but we also need to understand that the full wikipedia site can be copied and all their contents can used to create a similar site. I prefer an executives making money this way, than other companies that only hives you a limited right to use their content. On Wikipedia everybody owns the content to copy it and distribute it.

Re:so what?

[nightcats]

Agreed: in the widest context the question arises, "so what?" I'm not bothered in the least by the ads, and I usually push them a few bucks when I notice one. And if I'm bothered by the ad, I scroll past it -- oh, the pain! Really now, for what wiki has given to the Web, to society, to journalism, to education -- and compared with the depredations of Wall St. and corporate America -- how can this be even vaguely construed as a scandal?

Re:so what?

[EzInKy]

It is their executive's compensation that is the problem. When you are being asked to give charity, you expect that those you are giving it to are charitable minded themselves. I quit donating a percentage of my paycheck to the United Way when I found out that their executives were sucking up many times my salary in compensation. If I give, and I am more than willing to do that, you give.

Re:so what?

[MightyYar]

How can a huge organization expect to be successful with lower-than-market salaries? It's not reasonable to expect good people to work for a fraction of what they can earn in the for-profit world. You end up with a much shallower talent pool.

Re:so what?

[EzInKy]

I don't care if they are successful, only that they give. And I can tell you I am not the only one who quit giving part of my pay because of their CEO's greed. People got so tired of giving to an organization whose president sucked up more than we earned that we all refused to donate anymore. Charity is about giving, not profiting.

Re:so what?

[MightyYar]

Charity is about giving, not profiting.

I'd argue that it is about helping people. If hiring good people lets you do more good, than I don't get caught up in how much the employees make. How many low-overhead charities were able to help in Nepal? I'd be surprised if you could find one that made a meaningful contribution in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake.

Re:so what?

[EzInKy]

I didn't send a dime to Nepal because everyone who asked for it made more money than me, but I did give all my spare change to beggars in the streeet who asked for it because they were in obvious need. Charity is about giving, and the "talented" MBA type CEOs just exist to suck in as much income from anyone than can.

Re:so what?

[EzInKy]

Charity is about giving, not taking, so I and many others I know refuse to give to charity's whose CEOs worry more about taking as much as they can. I'm just thankful we are not "forced" to declare how much of our paychecks we will donate to these multimillionare lead organizations anymore.

Re:so what?

[MightyYar]

It's your money, so if you want to rank perceived fairness over effectiveness it is your right. Being a pragmatic person, I just find this attitude frustrating.

Re:so what?

[shutdown -p now]

How can a huge organization expect to be successful with lower-than-market salaries?

How can a huge org expect to be paying lower-than-market value for the goods that it needs? Why, by being a non-profit. If we are being asked to basically give them money to do charitable stuff, why is it unreasonable to ask executives of that company to give their time for less than market compensation?

Re:so what?

[BarbaraHudson]

And many churches are just money-making operations that fleece the flock ... and use any charity work for outreach - looking for new recruits. So the charity work is a form of advertising.

Re:so what?

[Mashiki]

Well that should be easy for you to quantify shouldn't it?

Re: so what?

[MightyYar]

I understand that sentiment - but it is just that, sentiment. In the end, effectiveness wins out and you can't have an effective organization without competitive salaries.

Re:so what?

[MightyYar]

Because the best people for a job are not necessarily in the same overlapping Venn diagram as people who like to donate their time to a charity.

Re:so what?

[MightyYar]

So you'll reduce the effectiveness of your charity just to stay ideologically pure? That's your prerogative, but it seems at odds with the mission of helping.

Re:so what?

[EzInKy]

I'm frustrated too at charity organizations who are lead by people who won't give of themselves.

Re:so what?

[MightyYar]

I get that, but it is an emotional response and doesn't actually help the less fortunate. The Red Cross helps people in a very real and effective way, and in a way that is completely unique. You simply cannot find a low-overhead charity with their mission, outreach, or effectiveness. IMHO, judge charities on the good that they do, not how they get around to doing it. But it is your money.

Anyway, most charitable executives make substantially less than they would in a similarly-sized private organization. Yes, they are still making a lot of money - but they are "donating" whatever the difference in salary would be - which is likely quite substantial. The Red Cross took in $3 billion last year and has 30,000 employees who co-ordinate 500,000 volunteers. A similar-sized company (in revenue terms) is Analog Devices, but they only have 10,000 employees. Total executive compensation at the Red Cross is $4.5 million (that's from 2010). Analog Devices pays $17.7 million to it's executive team. The CEO alone makes $6 million - more than the entire Red Cross executive team. You want charity? How about working for $5.5 million less than the market would otherwise pay you?

Re:so what?

[tehcyder]

many churches run the soup kitchens/foodbanks/etc in many parts of the world

You can be religious and do good things, but you can do the same things without being religious, so the religion is irrelevant.

It's like having red hair and being a concert pianist.

Re:so what?

[tehcyder]

I don't care if they are successful, only that they give. And I can tell you I am not the only one who quit giving part of my pay because of their CEO's greed. People got so tired of giving to an organization whose president sucked up more than we earned that we all refused to donate anymore. Charity is about giving, not profiting.

Well then the simple solution is to give them an additional 50% bonus which they have to donate to the charity.

Instant heroes.

Re:so what?

[tehcyder]

I didn't send a dime to Nepal because everyone who asked for it made more money than me

If you mean celebrity actors, or whatever, then so what?

If you mean the head of the Red Cross, then he certainly doesn't earn anywhere near what he could as CEO of a large commercial organisation. In the UK, I just checked and he earns GBP184,000 which is not in the same league as FTSE100 bosses, where the average (median) salary is GBP2,433,000

Re: so what?

[tehcyder]

I think non profit executives, especially charities, should be ready to accept a pay lower than market rates. I am not saying that they should not be paid, but I think for a big non profit, a pay of 4-5 times the average national wage is reasonable.

If the leaders of the non profit is not ready to contribute, I dun see why I should contribute to it.

I think that pay of 4-5 times the average national wage is reasonable for anyone, but I doubt the CEOs of big multinationals would agree, and it's that level of person you're talking about.

The head of a large charity is a full time, responsible job, so you can't just rely on well meaning part timers volunteering in their spare time.

Personally, I would be happy for there to be no need for charities at all, with their roles being covered by general taxation, but I know this is socialism, so you have to deal with current reality.

Re:so what?

[BarbaraHudson]

It's been quantified many times already.

Re:so what?

[cheesybagel]

He meant the US Red Cross not the British one.

Re:so what?

[Mashiki]

It's been quantified many times already.

Then you should be easily able to prove your point right?

Re:so what?

[BarbaraHudson]

Don't be lazy - there's google for that. But, one example that comes to mind - scientology, the fake religion founded by L. Ron Hubbard. Surely you've heard of it.

Re:so what?

[Mashiki]

It's not my job to prove your point, that's your job when someone asks for it. And scientology is as much of a religion as meth is to a healthy lifestyle.

Re:so what?

[BarbaraHudson]

This Fortune article from last month says that the tax man disagrees with you.

Want to try again? :-)

Mind you, I thing all churches should pay taxes ...

Re:so what?

[Mashiki]

Okay, and that has what to do with the original question. You seem to have gone off in left field.

Re:so what?

[BarbaraHudson]

Okay, and that has what to do with the original question. You seem to have gone off in left field.

No - you asked a question - I provided an answer. Now you can always get off your butt and do more research, instead of continuing to argue a failed cause. But no, trolls don't do that.

All of that money

[MikeRT]

And they can't even back torrents of full HTML dumps of the various wiki* sites.

100% disclosure, or smeg off

[drinkypoo]

I want to know where every dollar is spent, or I'm donating 0$, like I have done. Seems to be working fine for them.

Re:100% disclosure, or smeg off

[drinkypoo]

Are you still using Wikipedia? If yes, here's a link for you.

There's nothing hypocritical about wanting to know where they're going to spend the money before I give them more money if people are already giving them more to operate on than they actually require. I have contributed more to open and free knowledge on the internet than more than 99% of you dillholes, which is not to say that it's all that much. But I've produced a bit of content and given it away for free, including a little bit of what's on Wikipedia, a nice lump on Everything2, and many detailed and documented HOWTOs on my website, for which I collect no donations nor ad revenue... in short, eat a bag of dicks up.

Re:100% disclosure, or smeg off

[tehcyder]

I want to know where every dollar is spent,

They're spent on tracking every other dollar. Bureaucracy isn't cheap.

Neither is it avoidable when you get past being a one man band.

And still they are the poor sister

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

What % of web searches consist of:
1) Google for XXX
2) View overview of XXX pulled from Wikipedia
3) Click on Google ad

If only they could figure out a way to capture even a full percentage point of that revenue stream...

Re:And still they are the poor sister

[Anonymous Coward]

Who uses Google to look for XXX, when Youporn is much more efficient at the task?

Oh, so now they have money!

[GeekWithAKnife]

Look, over there! -A financially successful venture.

Why do they have millions? that's not right 'they' should take all the money away or wikimedia foundation should give us stuff, because.

Sure, we didn;t envy them when it was just a concept considered shaky at best. We didn't envy when they were struggling or were on the verge of collapse...

But look, over there, they have money! -they should have dust, or little else because *anger*, just because.

A few bucks for a rainy day, or an expansion etc. always easy to count costs for someone else and what they should and shouldn't do with money that is not your own.

Have a coke and a smile. Say, 'heck few people thought this will ever make money, now it did even though it was not created solely out of greed. Congratulations and well done!'

Re:Oh, so now they have money!

[Anonymous Coward]

The anger comes from the lies Wikipedia posts at the top of articles over and over claiming wikipedia is on the verge of bankruptcy. Some donated simply because they felt pressured (as if they didn't do something, wikipedia would go offline). Some may have had to stretch and put themselves in a less financially good situation (but likely not horrible). Yet, it seems it was rich people's charity all along.

Re:Oh, so now they have money!

[itsenrique]

Yeah, no one cares they have an endowment. Did you read the summary? The issue is of disclosure.

Re:Oh, so now they have money!

[gstoddart]

We don't give a damn if they have some money. But when they constantly have their ad campaign which says "yarg, donate now or we'll have to close and go dark", and in fact they're sitting on pile of money ... well, then we think we've been had.

This isn't a few bucks for a rainy day ... this is years worth of operating costs.

With this in mind, debate is ongoing on the mailing list over the appropriateness of the banners. Wikimedia software developer Ori Livneh writes that "the urgency and alarm of the copy is not commensurate with my (admittedly limited) understanding of our financial situation," and that "Quantitative assessments of fundraising strategy ought to consider impact on all assets, tangible or not. This includes the Foundation's goodwill and reputation, which are (by common wisdom) easy to squander and hard to repair."

So their goodwill and reputation could get a hard yank as people say "fuck you you greedy bastards".

Because people don't like being constantly told to donate or we go bust by organizations which are nowhere near that -- it smacks of self entitled assholes lying to their donors to make something sound far more urgent that it really is.

Re:Oh, so now they have money!

[Anonymous Coward]

>This isn't a few bucks for a rainy day ... this is years worth of operating costs.

How does $22.5m in yearly expenditures ($20m in staff salaries and $2.5m in server costs) with $53m in assets add up in your mind to "years worth of operating costs"?

Even if you think that the salary figure is outrageous, it's certainly a non-zero cost to pay the staff that keeps all those servers running.

Good for them - i should chip in some bucks!

[antiperimetaparalogo]

The problem is when donations DON'T become services, so no problem with this - i like it when things are that way: donations becoming services (that so many use, and i use also)... and some as hard sitting-around currency, planing for the future! So, good for them, i should chip in some bucks, thanks for reminding it to me...

Re:Good for them - i should chip in some bucks!

[antiperimetaparalogo]

The problem is when donations DON'T become services, so no problem with this - i like it when things are that way: donations becoming services (that so many use, and i use also)... and some as hard sitting-around currency, planing for the future! So, good for them, i should chip in some bucks, thanks for reminding it to me...

The problem here is they're awash in money and are paying staff who have no useful purpose (donations DON'T become services at a reasonable rate). Apparently some of the money goes to pay shills like antiperimetaparalogo.

I don't get money from them, i will give them money - the "staff who have no useful purpose" (as you believe, but i don't) is already covered from the donations, so some people (like you) have issues because they have some extra money sitting-around, something that is just fine with me since i know that the future is always unpridictable. By the way, i am religious, my church (some milleniums old...) has some money sitting-around - do you object?

Should add this to Wikipedia

[jfdavis668]

I should author a Wikipedia article on this subject.

Re:Should add this to Wikipedia

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Like this? http://wikimediafoundation.org...

There are things to dislike in the report, but I don't get the "new Wikipediocracy blog post (study) reveals" breathlessness. It's an annual nonprofit report - read it. You might also be surprised to know that other major charities usually have a bunch of their own dirty laundry. Take the American Cancer Society: of the $890M it takes in, it only passes on about $680M, and it even has to worry about an employee pension system. http://www.cancer.org/acs/grou...

If any particular charity's overhead bugs you...go find another charity, or start your own. There will never be shortage of needs.

Re:Should add this to Wikipedia

[drinkypoo]

If any particular charity's overhead bugs you...go find another charity, or start your own. There will never be shortage of needs.

Or share the information with others to raise awareness so they don't spend their money where it won't help. Like this story.

Peanuts compared to their value

[tommeke100]

Yes, for a non-profit 50 million $ just laying around seems like a lot. The WMF page says there are 230 employees for a revenue of 38 million $ (mostly from donations). You can hardly claim they are being secret about it. Also, paying 230 ppl an avg of 50,000$ a year is already 11 million$ ( so it's not a trivial amount, and if the avg is higher that goes up by a margin as well).
However, when you look at the presence of WikiPedia on the internet, it's basically first hit on google in every search on every possible subject. It's probably the number one source for people to find information about a subject. They have a HUGE presence. If someone had to put a value on that, it would be worth billions. Look at other internet companies. Google (365 billion $), facebook (200 billion $), etc... Sure, they are not Google or Facebook, but would definitely be valued in the billions. The 50 million $ is just change compared to their net worth.

Re:Peanuts compared to their value

[Megol]

Remember that the actual content is produced free of charge by volunteers. Are 230 employees needed for infrastructure maintenance and development?

Re:Peanuts compared to their value

[Headw1nd]

You say the same thing about Youtube, and they have over 700 staff, plus whatever assistance they get from Google.

Re:Peanuts compared to their value

[Ol Olsoc]

Remember that the actual content is produced free of charge by volunteers. Are 230 employees needed for infrastructure maintenance and development?

Almost certainly. The scale of Wikipedia is pretty huge, and I would imagine they need people top keep track of the changes, because some folks out there have interests in removing anything they see negative (as in politics and business). Then you have all the other employees you need to run a show like that. Just like any other business or non-profit.

Re:Peanuts compared to their value

[Anonymous Coward]

> Remember that the actual content is produced free of charge by volunteers.

That's right. Still, Wikipedia *as a whole* is unique and -- for whatever reasons -- able to channel all that volunteer effort into a somewhat coherent whole. The value of this is HUGE and unprecedented.

In the pioneer times of the www (remember NCSA Mosaic?) I saw an initiative to build a www based encyclopedia. I was enthusiastic and mailed them. The thing petered out, as so many since then. Again, for whatever reasons (being at the right place on the right time, judicious choice of rules, whatever) Wikipedia "got it right".

Of course, this won't go without conflicts. Be it the presumptuous asshole who wants a page for her/himself, without any regard to Wikipedia principles, be it the sick Wikipedia editor on a power trip who thinks (s)he knows better than all. That's how human endeavours go.

I accept whatever (small) amount of bureaucratic squandering it'll take to keep such a high value afloat. You'd get it better? Fine with me. Show them how to. Or fork the content and go ahead. Or whatever.

Re:Peanuts compared to their value

[AthanasiusKircher]

However, when you look at the presence of WikiPedia on the internet, it's basically first hit on google in every search on every possible subject. It's probably the number one source for people to find information about a subject. They have a HUGE presence.

Yes -- all the more reason to NOT keep encouraging them. I know most people use Wikipedia on a frequent basis, but if you start poking around the Wikipediocracy posts (not just the one listed in TFS), you start to see a LOT of serious issues there.

Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source of information. Let me repeat that: Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source of information.

(Or, if you prefer a more mainstream media discussion, look here for something recent.)

We should be lamenting your fact that such a screwed up resource has become so dominant as a source of information for so many.

I love the idea of Wikipedia. I was an active contributor back in the early years. But it's never "grown up." It's like a piece of open-source software stuck forever in alpha because active contributors are dwindling, new contributors get mired in a bureaucratic nightmare of argumentation over meaningless "policies" rather than content, and the actual source has remained so open to "Wild-West-style" editing that past hard work is continuously degraded by people deliberately introducing "new bugs into the code."

Meanwhile, they're asking people to donate money -- not to the actual contributors or authors, or even to the admins who police the content to keep the vandalism at bay. But instead to some weird set of people who are only tangentially related to all the supposed "high-value" content that isn't produced or directly managed by them.

Really? If this were a software project, you'd want to contribute to a software project like that? (Well, in all honesty, it IS a software project, not an information source that you're contributing to... but that's another whole discussion....)

And what about honesty in their fundraising? Wikipedia doesn't want people talking about the bureaucratic crap going on behind the scenes or about the rampant vandalism that threatens the apparent value that you point out people place on the site... and they also can't be honest to readers and potential donors that they have plenty of money to keep the servers running ad-free -- they're just choosing to spend it on other things??

Anyone who actually reformed this mess into something even moderately more stable and reliable would definitely make it worth billions, as in your estimation. But it's not there, and until it is reformed significantly, it has a high probability of getting worse and more problematic over time.

Re:Peanuts compared to their value

[ortholattice]

What scares me is that with so many staff, the inevitable urge is to bloat the "user experience" with ever fancier and annoying "features". As far as I'm concerned the interface was finished quite a few years ago, and I would prefer that they just leave it alone. I can't stand their slideshows when I just want to see a single image, so I have Javascript turned off for the site, enabled only on occasion when I want to sort a table column or something.

Re:Peanuts compared to their value

[mobby_6kl]

Youtube is a commercial operation and they'll have a lot more lines of business: marketing, sales, legal and what not., who'll almost certainly make up a significant part of the workforce.

Re:Peanuts compared to their value

[Headw1nd]

Well, when they started talking to Microsoft it scared Google enough to buy them for $1.65B

Re:Peanuts compared to their value

[Megol]

Not really comparably as the infrastructure for video streaming have to be considerably larger in storage/network bandwidth and also distributed geographically to avoid bottlenecks.

Not to mention that Youtube actually pay for some of its content. ;)

Re:Peanuts compared to their value

[pz]

Also, paying 230 ppl an avg of 50,000$ a year is already 11 million ...

And don't forget that the total cost to the employer for each employee (or FTE) is approximately double the employee's salary when you roll in the costs of benefits and the infrastructure to support that employee. (Meaning $50K to the employee, $50K for everything else.) Add that to your estimate of $11M for salary, and you're sucking up nearly two thirds of the published revenue.

Re:Peanuts compared to their value

[DerekLyons]

You can hardly claim they are being secret about it.

No, it's not being kept secret per se - but it is kept in a dusty filing cabinet in a basement. They don't exactly publicize it, and what publicity they do undertake (the fund raising banners) gives a very different impression.
 

However, when you look at the presence of WikiPedia on the internet, it's basically first hit on google in every search on every possible subject.

If anyone but Wikipedia was as efficient at spamming Google - they'd change their ranking algorithm. That Wikipedia does it "subconsciously" as it were doesn't change the fact that many of the results are near the top because Wikipedia is keyword dense, has plenty of keyword internal links, and the pages are routinely changed - not because of any particular value of a given page.
 

They have a HUGE presence. If someone had to put a value on that, it would be worth billions.

Which is completely irrelevant as to whether or not Wikimedia, the non profit foundation should, retain so much cash on hand, have employee and salary costs so out of proportion to operating costs, and continue as somewhat misleading advertising campaign.

Re:Peanuts compared to their value

[lgw]

Wikipedia is very strong on a very narrow set of articles: non-controversial scientific basic, and episode lists for TV programs (and book lists for authors, etc) Stuff where all the facts are easy to explain, and there's no argument anywhere about them. I find it very valuable for that narrow use!

I'd love to see more work spent in explaining less accessible math/science entries (from particle physics to group theory - the articles are a mess past the most introductory stuff). It's sad that people get such a negative experience with the reversionists and deletionists that this doesn't happen.

Re:Peanuts compared to their value

[thekohser]

Wikipedia is very strong on a very narrow set of articles: non-controversial scientific...

Really? Is that like how Wikipedia's article on inflammation said that pain in the inflamed tissue is caused by volcanic rock that is produced by the body? (And it said that for weeks on end, viewed about 100,000 times.) Please, stop the mythology that Wikipedia is "very strong" on any set of articles. http://wikipediocracy.com/2015...

Re:Peanuts compared to their value

[lgw]

Still more accurate than your average newspaper. Still a very useful resource. IMO, entertaining vandalism like that just makes it better.

Return on $53 million

[Anonymous Coward]

Safe return on $53 million at the moment is around $1 million per year. I'm not sure what their staffing costs are, but if the servers cost $2.5 million per year, it makes sense that they'd continue to fundraise.

{{Notability|date=May 2015}}

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but every time I've ever contributed to Wikipedia, my articles are either marked as not meeting Notability criteria, or my edits are reverted by some 14 year old, so he/she can re-implement the same edits in their own wording.

Since I've had so many terrible experiences with Wikipedia, I refuse to donate my time or money.

Re:{{Notability|date=May 2015}}

[sd4f]

I've had that problem from my first and only attempt to "contribute" to wikipedia. The idea is a good one, but it's seriously flawed in its application when some mug can moderate information when they haven't the slightest clue of the topic. I once tried to add information on an Australian manufactured car, and unfortunately some person from the USA took exception to certain comments, I was new, so didn't follow procedure, but when I provided books as my sources, rather than web pages, they still wouldn't back down. I couldn't be bothered arguing so just let the reverts happen and just washed my hands of ever trying to contribute to wikipedia ever again.

Re:{{Notability|date=May 2015}}

[drinkypoo]

Well, it's dramatically less popular, but you could put content on Everything2. There, your "writeups" tend to remain until really truly superseded by another, and you're in control of them until they're deleted. I put my content both there and on my own website, which has tolerable pagerank on its own. Not great, but pretty good for a low-traffic blog.

Re:{{Notability|date=May 2015}}

[jones_supa]

I have had somewhat better luck during the last couple of years. It seems that the snipers are not that much on watch anymore.

Re:{{Notability|date=May 2015}}

[Anonymous Coward]

Notes:
1. I've seen multiple times where people think they are following the guidelines when they really are not. Did you follow the guidelines posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
2. Wikipedia does not post ages of members, as far as I'm aware. This comment sound like sour grapes, and puts the rest of your complaints in perspective for me.
3. This is easy to cite, with a link to a specific revision from the history. Let us be the judge whether or not your particular wording in the contribution sucked. Whether or not it was reworded, the important thing is you added new information, and that new information is now there. Whether or not it's there in your exact words is not important. Check your ego.

Congrats - your attitude and "check your ego" comment just summarized everything that is wrong with Wikipedia editors. Their toxic, hostile attitudes towards others is worse than League of Legends. You just proved OP's point.

BTW, my Captcha for posting this? Retard. Cue social justice warriors...

Re:{{Notability|date=May 2015}}

[AthanasiusKircher]

I couldn't be bothered arguing so just let the reverts happen and just washed my hands of ever trying to contribute to wikipedia ever again.

You're lucky you figured this out so quickly. I spent significant amounts of my time back in 2004 to 2006 or so contributing a LOT to Wikipedia before I discovered how broken it was. Then I quit and got out. I'm glad I did because in the years since it's become clear that Wikipedia has no intentions of improving their structure compared to what it was a decade ago.

A year or two ago I went back to some of the articles I authored or contributed significantly to, and while some of them were bigger and better, others had little to no trace of my original contributions, some have been actively "pruned" because of "notability" concerns, only to have new sections created again that were inferior to what was there before, and a couple in fact now propagated misinformation and inaccuracies that I spent so much time getting rid of.

I understand the nature of the web. I don't expect my words and contributions to be "carved into stone tablets" for all time. But I would hope that when I've helped to make something better, it would be part of a chain of events toward continuous improvement. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no sufficient mechanism to work toward that goal and actually a lot of mechanisms that work against that goal. So, unless you're willing to not only argue against the bureaucracy to make your initial edits but also to police them in perpetuity, there's no point in donating your time to Wikipedia.

Re:{{Notability|date=May 2015}}

[sd4f]

The problems are complex, because no doubt, some people really are quite proud of their contributions, and any editing or wholesale discarding of their work will no doubt be offensive to them. Having read some discussion pages, I could see that some people get really protective of their 'baby'. That means it would be better to be more diplomatic and if someone has made an entry, it would possibly be better to edit or adding to their work rather than rewriting it. But with that said, it's basically sacrificing accuracy and quality in order to keep some insignificant person on the internet, happy, that is unless the person who wants to 'correct' anything is actually making it worse.

Then there are some articles, which I've read, that I know that they really do need a complete rewrite, as the whole structure isn't bad, it's awful, it reads like a below average school research project where everything is just cut and pasted, and absolutely no effort has been made in thinking about the article as a whole. You know there's a problem when you go to an article to get information, and your meager knowledge is sufficient to identify that the content in the article is even worse...

I like using wikipedia as a precursory look into something, but I know full well that controversial topics are usually internet warzones, there's a lot of historical revisionism, various forms of patriotism/nationalism that tries to slant outlooks, there's loads of bias, even on seemingly noncontroversial things, as such, I've seen enough poorly written articles to know that wikipedia needs to be read sceptically. Any student who references wikipedia should be immediately given a 0, as it isn't an authoritative source, but they should also be taught how to verify things, and how to better identify bias or slanted writing and even poor writing, taking into consideration that everyone will still use the site.

Re:Hard sitting-around currency?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> If it's invested, it's not just sitting around, like you could go down to the bank and withdraw it.

If it's investments in regular old stocks and bonds, then yes, these are considered "near liquid" assess you basically could go (sell and) withdraw your money during normal business hours.
http://www.investopedia.com/te...

53 million?

[asv108]

Sorry but 53 million in assets for foundation with that level of operating costs that is rising every year is hardly awash in money. Harvard has a 36 billion dollar endowment, that's an example of an organization awash in money.

Re:53 million?

[leonbev]

Yeah... 53 million dollars doesn't seem like a huge cash reserve for a company with 220 employees, They could easily burn through that 3 years, or even less if they started expanding with new projects.

Personally, I'd like a new page editor screen doesn't look like a source code editor from the 1990's. Ya know, just in case they're looking for ideas on how to spend that money.

Re:53 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of their 'operating costs' is a massive staff that has questionable value.

Re:53 million?

[DerekLyons]

Huh? How is a quarter century of direct operating costs on hand (at current costs) not awash in money? Costs aren't raising that fast.

They need to get a monkey.

[jpellino]

And a dart board. Doesn't someone do that annual thing where a monkey and a dart board beat the average fund manager? Heck, just buy the broadest index fund there is and you can sleep at night.

Put this in perspective

[MobyDisk]

Before getting alarmed about numbers with no context, take a look at Charity Navigator. Compare The Wikimedia foundation with your favorite charity and see how they look.

Charity navigator rates the Wikimedia foundation as 4/4 stars. The system they use is quite fascinating: the site is generates the numbers mathematically from non-profit tax filings. What the site doesn't tell you is if the charity is actually doing good work. If a charity's goal is to feed babies to demons, and they do it efficiently, they will get good marks.

Umm, sure

[Maury Markowitz]

"Yet millions of people continue to contribute, seeming to think that Wikipedia will "go offline" if they aren't given more donations."

Says who?

"Yet as a new Wikipediocracy"

Oh. So then the first quoted sentence should actually read:

"We imagine that bunch of people we invented so we could complain about the Wikipedia, which is the entire reason for the existence of our site, might think that donating is a good idea, which it is. We didn't conduct any sort of study or analysis, because that would take time away from writing additional whiny articles."

Re:Umm, sure

[Maury Markowitz]

"Anectodal evidence is hardly evidence, but"

There's no "but".

"While, truth be told"

It's not truth.

"Wikimedia Foundation is a honest and decent entity"

Undemonstrated rhetorical jibe.

"let other careless people"

Which "others"? The sample of two who you now denigrate?

"we need your donations to survive!"

Which is, by definition as a charitable organization, demonstrably true.

"they don't really mean what you think they mean."

They mean precisely what the *say*.

"Is that ok with you?"

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Re:Please read:

[rockout]

Jimmy Wales is worth an estimated $1 million. He could probably afford to buy a nice 30-foot sailboat; bigger if he planned to live on it exclusively.

53 Million in Assets

[Anonymous Coward]

From an accounting perspective (which is what the Wikipedia report is compiled in), an asset is anything of value that you own. Cash is only 1 type of asset. The website creating this information is intentionally muddying the waters. I would expect most of their "surplus" assets are held in areas such as switches, servers, insurance, desks and PCs for their employees.

While I didn't read the entire Wikipedia balance sheet, I'm suspecting the driving company only took the total assets line, allocated the inbound income and called it a day.

I'm treating this as disingenuous drivel.

Consumer Reports

[ThatsNotPudding]

According to an older story [wikipediocracy.com] at Wikipediocracy, the objections seem to be partly that fundraising campaigns are expressed in a dire "We need money now or the lights go off!" kind of tone, when that really isn't the situation.

The same could be said about Consumer Reports. I continue to be a member, but I do tire of their endless (and not exactly zero-cost) mailings begging for money. Surprisingly, they also are intentionally (IMHO) fuzzy in conflating subscriptions to the magazine with their requests for money for Consumer Reports [Foundation].

Walk the walk

[ThatsNotPudding]

Nonprofits don't generate shareholder returns, this doesn't mean that they are prevented from enriching executives via compensation packages.

Exactly. If this is a noble pursuit for humanity, everyone's salary / package / compensations should be posted - most especially Mr. Wales, who isn't exactly pure as the driven snow.

After all: information just wants to be free.

Re:Walk the walk

[Mr. Somey]

The point is that Wikimedia is building a war chest, not that they're overspending on salaries (though arguably they have hired a lot of overpaid developers, given what they've managed to actually produce). Jimbo Wales isn't paid directly by Wikimedia, he gets his money on the back-end as a paid public speaker and CEO of Wikia, which benefits somewhat from Wikipedia brand recognition.

The higher Wikimedia salaries are published in tax returns, and they're mostly in line with other Silicon Valley non-profits, but again, that's not the issue here. The issue is they're fundraising as if they're on their last financial legs, when in fact they're not even close to that point - if anything, just the opposite. If they minimized their staff and moved to a cheaper location, they could survive for 10-15 years without another dime and hardly anyone would notice a thing.

Why do they keep crying poor?

[kriston]

If everything's so well paid for, why do they keep crying poor with those beggar messages at the top of the screen all the time?

I don't care - I get value

[rawoke083]

I honestly don't care ! I get sooo much value and enjoyment out of Wikipedia.com ! I don't fault the car company for making a profit ! As long as I'm happy with my car and I'm willing thp pay their asking price(out of my own free will) - who's to say they are making too much money !

It's also awash in lunacy

[rs79]

There is a type of biochemical pathway in plants used when CO2 is very high. The alarmists have edited it to say it's for arid conditions I suppose to imply plants are adapting to a math error or something. Between lots of this and the medical business edits it loses objectivity and reliability weekly.

Point is there are species of algae that have this property.

Wikipedia has become a slow moving parody of itself to paraphrase Peter Honeyman.

Re:It's about ethics in nerd shaming

[sparkydevil]

You might be interested in this: The Sexists at the Top of Wikipedia

Most basic feature still missing

[Livius]

The English Wikipedia should have user preferences to select UK / US spellings. It would be trivial compared to the bloated user preferences and formatting flourishes that it has now. It can't call itself scholarly when it's full of spelling errors.

Re:Most basic feature still missing

[quenda]

The English Wikipedia should have user preferences to select UK / US spellings.

Why? I never heard of people having trouble with the alternative* spellings. So long as each article is internally consistent, who cares which it uses?

It would be trivial compared

Hardly! Then you will have to support Australian and Canadian spelling. And determine it by context - we program a computer, but read a TV programme.
Then there are the subtle grammar differences, and vocabulary. Would need to manually edit each page, then maintain the two in parallel.
Its one of those ideas that sounds OK - until you actually think about it.

(* or "alternate" as the en_US version of this comment would say.)

Re:Most basic feature still missing

[Livius]

The wikimedia markup already does vastly more complicated things.

Re:Hard sitting-around currency?

[thekohser]

This better not be one of those stupid blog posts from that guy who got caught trying to advertise on Wikipedia again.

I like that guy's blog posts. He usually has a very factual insight to offer on the nefarious goings on at the Wikimedia Foundation.

Re:Hard sitting-around currency?

[Mr. Somey]

The more commonly-used term for what the person referred to was trying to do is "advocate" (on behalf of paying clients), not "advertise." Some folks probably won't bother with the distinction, but anyone who does actual marketing probably would.