Slashdot Mirror
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 $2.5 million to actually keep Wikimedia project servers online and handling user traffic. The rest of the WMF's annual donations go for "staff salaries, travel and miscellaneous." And evidently, many people are growing disgruntled with this ongoing state of affairs, even Wikimedia staff who benefit from it.
I'd suggest that the folks who are outraged by this start their own wiki, run with all volunteers, and pass the hat among themselves so that the servers can be fed.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
a Pyle of money.
Wait, so is this liquid cash or invested money? This is a rather important distinction since non-profits often depend heavily on interest from investments as their primary stable source of income. So if this is the later case, it sounds like responsible stewardship, at least that piece of it since I gather the amature nature of administration shows through in other areas.
Even if they are sitting on money and over-expend it, all their content is Creative Commons, anybody can "Fork Wikipedia". The contribution to Wikipedia to the present days is still there and it is huge. It will be desirable that the extra money will be expended to enrich the content and not waste it, but if we compare how politicians use money today, I prefer that it is being waste on a collaborative open project. I really hope that the same thing happens to Archive.org someday, that they will be able to sit on money to improve the "library".
I want to know where every dollar is spent, or I'm donating 0$, like I have done. Seems to be working fine for them.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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...
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!'
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
I should author a Wikipedia article on this subject.
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.
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.
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.
>> 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...
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.
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.