This is how much money Wikipedia really has... | Hacker News Reader

This is how much money Wikipedia really has...

youtube.com

23 pointsakolbe17 comments

Wikipedia is great. But it has become a cash cow and people are being used and tricked into donating.

People reading the fundraising banners (currently shown in India and Latin America) often think that Wikipedia must be struggling to keep Wikipedia online.

Yet the Wikimedia Foundation, the organisation that hosts Wikipedia (they don't write it ... all the articles are written by unpaid volunteers like yours truly) and which is asking for these donations, is richer than ever.

Each year its revenue far exceeds its spending, and it's asking for more money each year. Revenue has doubled every four or five years ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial... ). Internet hosting for example costs them just $2.4 million a year, and they have $230 million in net assets ... plus a $100+ million endowment.

If you want to know more or see the evidence, here are some links with further info.

1. 2020/2021 audited financial statements for the Wikimedia Foundation: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikim...

2. Wikimedia executives being paid salaries in excess of $300,000 (2020 Form 990): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikim...

3. Fact-checking an interview with a Wikimedia board member: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list...

4. Wikipedia is swimming in money—why is it begging people to donate? https://dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/

5. On the Wikimedia Endowment's lack of transparency (it has never published audited financial statements): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...

To sum up, in its 2020/2021 financial year (running from July 2020 to June 2021, Wikimedia took about US$ 90 million more than it spent.

Its net assets increased by $51 million: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1e/Wikim...

Its Endowment increased by about $40 million.

June 2020 status of the Endowment was $62.9 million: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endow...

June 2021 status of the Endowment was over $100 million ("The Endowment reached our initial $100 million goal in June 2021"): https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endow...

There has been no update on the status of the Endowment since then.

The Meta-Wiki fundraising talk page shown in the video is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising/Archive_6

It's professinalized American-style fundraising. It's an accepted part of US culture. The whole system of US politics works like that. People in the rest of the world often don't understand that.

https://campaignsandelections.com/industry-news/how-american...

The sad thing is that it seems to be people who are actually poor who are most affected by this kind of sales pitch.

As is mentioned on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising/Archive_6#S...! (you have to re-add the exclamation mark which HN breaks off for the link to work) the following was posted on the English Wikipedia Help Desk during the big 2021 end-of-year fundraiser:

----------

Dear "Good Folks" At Wikipedia,

First, allow me to sincerely express my gratitude for being one of the finest Web services provided. THANK YOU to eacxh volunteer that unselfishlessly donates their time to Helping make our world a better & more knowledgable/informed place to live.

Second, While I am a very low income Senior [ live in Gov't. H.U.D. Apt.], I do still try to contribute to certain causes. Wikipedia is 1 such Group. I believe that I have given Wikipedia small donations for about 3 years now. While I do not have much to give, It is important that You know we appreciate the great work you undertake.

I do, respectfully, need to point out 1 "process" that Wikipedia implements that "disturbs/upsets" me. I just, accidentally, got rolled over to Wikipedia on a matter I am researcing. The Wikipedia "overlay" writing asking for Donations said this was 4th time You have asked me.

THAT "NOTICE" MADE ME FEEL VERY "GUILTY/BAD"....... Right now, I have $18.00 in my bank account ! That's It !

Soon, I will get my only source of Income [ a monthly Social Security Check] & will try to make a donation at that time. While I do not mind your "Reminding" me that Wikipedia can use Donations, Please quit stating this is 1st, 2nd, 3rd time......you have aqsked !

Thank You & Best Wishes, Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.33.228.209 (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

----------

Diff link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_de...

A longstanding Wikipedia admin (from South Africa) commented:

"Taking money from Thomas and then making him feel guilty for not giving more, this emotional blackmail (dare I call it extortion?) is truly despicable! You owe all the Thomases an apology and a full refund. This banner campaign is doing a lot of reputational damage, shut it down.

Until now I was proud to be a Wikipedian. Dodger67 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)"

The fundraising is just getting a bit too professional – finding out what triggers people into giving (lots of A/B tests). Of course it would be okay to launch desperate-sounding messages if Wikipedia were actually short of money, but this is about maximum revenue growth for its own sake – which works best if people remain unaware of the Wikimedia Foundation's actual financial situation.

Keeping people in the dark was not the founding ideal of Wikipedia.

For some historical perspective, this is what the Wikimedia Foundation VP of Engineering and Product Development said about Wikipedia's money needs in 2013, less than 10 years ago:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March...

"WMF has operated in the past without staffing and with very minimal staffing, so clearly it's _possible_ to host a high traffic website on an absolute shoestring. But I would argue that an endowment, to actually be worthwhile, should aim for a significantly higher base level of minimal annual operating expenses, more in the order of magnitude of $10M+/year, to ensure not only bare survival, but actual sustainability of Wikimedia's mission."

$10M+/year! Even if you double that to $20M/year, the Wikimedia Foundation has about twenty times that in the bank today, and factoring in the interest this money earns, as well as tens of millions in planned gifts already lined up (people leaving them money in their wills), they could basically run Wikipedia in perpetuity without ever asking for another penny.

Instead, they now have an official revenue target of nearly $150 million (and are on course to exceed that by tens of millions, as usual).

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimed...

They hired professional fundraisers who took one look at the web property that is Wikipedia and thought: Yeehaw!!! This is somthing we can work with. To a fundraiser, NOT raising the maxium amount possible by any means would be unprofessional. It's what they're paid to do. Management will always be grateful for the extra money and think of a way to spend it.

That's true, but it certainly doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

There is no excuse for what they're doing, it's just plain grabbing money because they can, as much as they can, on the backs of an army of unpaid volunteers with good intentions.

Especially given that they're getting people in India to earnestly beseech their compatriots to give and save Wikipedia:

https://twitter.com/aakash_dwivedi/status/153562117215852953... https://twitter.com/darkenetic/status/1535582860459278336 https://twitter.com/2030chintu/status/1534500833798156290

"wiki is dying out since it relies on donations and no ads or anything. Theyve had a donation drop and theyre asking for donations to help run the site Wikipedia has been there maybe ever since the internet, we cant let it die out Please donate if you can #SaveWikipedia"

"Wikipedia that has proved to be a immense source of knowledge over a period of time is under financial crises, in order to sustain it needs financial support....#savewikipedia"

It's the sort of mass manipulation Goebbels would have been proud of.

How wonderful. I just paid them a fair amount last week - large than any of my previous donations - thinking they were struggling. Now if only I had waited for HN expert analysis. sobs

I have completely dropped the use of Wikipedia on political and world affairs, including modern history, due to very slanted views.

They do give refunds. See "What is your refund policy?" on this page:

https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ

They say:

If for any reason you wish to have your donation refunded, please contact us via email at donate@wikimedia.org[1] and include the following information:

* Full name of donor

* Date of donation — All refund requests must be made within 90 days of donation

* Amount donated

* Payment method used — Do not include credit card numbers in your email

* Country of origin

* Reason for the refund

All refunds will be processed as quickly as possible, but processing times may vary depending on the payment method. Please note: Some payment methods may not support refunds or require refunds to be made through the payment method (card) utilized, prompting additional information to process your refund.

Thanks for the link and the analysis. Though since I still use Wikipedia for science and math, I will simply write my donation off as a personal loss and self-reminder not to blindly trust guilt-inducing, beseeching banners without doing research.

I don't object to donating and have done so several times but the alarming tone of the recent ads made me donate much higher than my usual amount. Will skip donating for years now to balance the ledger in my mind.

That makes sense. :)

I support ad blocking on Wikipedia. ;)

Don't give them a dime.

They're worse than Encyclopedia Britannica door-to-door salespeople.

I wonder if Archive.org could set up a similar scheme. I'd much rather let them have this kind of money than Wikipedia honestly.

They're certainly more in need of the money and are actually vital to Wikipedia, ensuring continued access to cited sources that are no longer online for whatever reason.

I remember seeing the IA banner at around Q4 of each year. Sometimes they noted that the amount will be 100% or 200% matched by other generous donors, so any amount donated will have more impact. [1] is an example of the banner.

[1] https://archive.org/details/jenica-jessen-jason-buckner

Also worth noting that people at the Internet Archive are paid far less than what people at Wikimedia Foundation are paid.

Internet Archive (2019 figures):

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943...

169 employees, total salary costs $10.9 million. Average per head: $70K.

Wikimedia Foundation (2019 figures):

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200...

291 employees, total salary costs $55.6 million.

Even if you allow that the WMF salary costs total will include some non-US employees in addition to the 291 US employees, per Schedule F in the Form 990 the non-US employees can at most have numbered 71 and were probably considerably less (many of those 71 will have been independent contractors rather than employees). Even if you assume that all non-US "employees, agents, and independent contractors" in Schedule F were employees whose salaries are included in the $55.6M total, you arrive at a per-head figure of $154K, more than twice the average of Internet Archive.

They are both located in San Francisco.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com