I am not sure it does - wikipedia famously does not pay contributors (except for that one guy). The majority of their spending is on wages though, for their 700 employees. I'm sure some of them are doing worthwhile development on MediaWiki etc but I suspect the majority are not. Like Mozilla, the organisation could charitably be described as bloated.
It doesn't matter. It's highly reproachable that they decided to use the money that people donated to help keep Wikipedia's lights on, on a political endeavour. It sends a clear signal to me to never, ever, give money to them again. It is infuriating to see your resources being employed on political causes that you fiercely oppose.
won’t literally any charity spend money somewhere you wouldn’t necessarily agree with? most of the time you simply wouldn’t know.
Well, if you donate to a charity that is supposed to do X, and along the way said charity tells the whole world that "by the way, out of every 100 dollars that you donate to us, we'll give 5, maybe 10 dollars, to causes that you absolutely can't stand", you'll only continue donating to this charity if you are a self hating imbecile.
It's part of the Wikipedia mission. It hasn't been kept secret. It's been well-known for a long time. [1]
Only 42% of donations go to Wikipedia and related websites. There is no breakdown for this, and there are likely some vanity projects that are not needed (they mention data analytics)
Another thread was quoting 2% for hosting costs, so I'm curious where the 42% comes from.