They also spent $2.8m on travel and conferences in 2019 [0], which is more than they spent on internet hosting...
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim... (page 13)
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim... (page 13)
And if you've been on any of those conferences (it's not hard to get in, there are a lot of people invited) - they aren't exactly luxury affairs, they usually happen in a library or university and constitute of a crowd of geeks sitting in groups arguing or staring at computer screens, or sometimes presenting slides to other geeks. Those aren't exactly lavish affairs. Of course, some people get their hotel bill and travel paid for, but given those people help building such enormous site as Wikipedia, it's not that huge of an expense.
Wikipedia's biggest challenge over the years hasn't been building or hosting its website. It's been convincing the world that an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone on the Internet is a credible and neutral source of information.
One of the ways you do that is by speaking at conferences, traveling to meet with people, etc.
> Wool wrote that Wales had asked the foundation to reimburse him for costly items like a $1,300 dinner for four at a Florida steakhouse. Wool alleged that at one point Wales was short on receipts for $30,000 in expenses before settling the matter with the foundation's lawyer and paying the organization $7,000.
> Wool added that Wales' foundation credit card was taken away in 2006.
[0] https://www.smh.com.au/technology/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-acc...
This is not wikimedia's job at all. The public can decide if they trust the content.
That seems... odd.
The WMF can certainly make their case and answer criticisms, but there are cost-efficient ways of doing that. I don't see much value in funding parties, conferences, etc. for a product that has already dominated in most markets.
> I doubly you will read it
Why do you feel the need to use ad hominems rather than simply making your point?
> Research by the WMF in 2019 shows incredibly low rates of awareness in large parts of the world
I wasn't claiming that Wikipedia is near peak global usage. My point was that there is no meaningful competition left, so usage should grow organically, as it did for EN-WP back when the WMF had a shoestring budget.
Can you identify some markets where Wikipedia is losing ground to an inferior competitor with more aggressive marketing? I'm not sure there are any.
And more recently, the US has more than four times as many pageviews as #2 (4B to Japan's 1B)[0].
So no, I don't think the work is done outside the US, and I think maintaining a leading position doesn't happen automatically, so I don't think the work is entirely done inside the US, either.
0. https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects/reading/page-view...
Anyone know if someone donates hosting resources to them? I simply cannot imagine serving that much traffic on < $3m.
I.e. that it has siphoned off a whole bunch of pageloads that otherwise would have cost money.
If it was as corrupt as the NRA (which is why NY is moving to dissolve them), then I would agree with the sentiment but a few million sounds about right (About 9k per employee)