what are they increasing spending on? Are they still trying to branch out to other initiatives?
I understand, even with static pages, that hosting one of the largest websites in the world won't be cheap, but it can't be rising that much, right?
We who were born before this era really took off, are spoiled by the journalism standards and information purity levels of the past, especially post the fall of the USSR.
Wikipedia is impressive on what it manages to coordinate on a daily basis, especially given only 644 FT staff.
Wikipedia's pages are not static.
Realistically though most of the budget is spent on improving the website not just treading water.
Grants & movement support was 25%.
Hosting was 3.4%. Facilities was 1.4%.
The Wikimedia Foundation is another Komen Foundation.
It's all very open if anyone wants to track down details themselves: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundatio...
2025–2026 is in-progress: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_...
>Similar to last year, technology-related work represents nearly half of the Foundation's budget at 47% alongside priorities to protect volunteers and defend the projects of an additional 29% – a total of 76% of the Foundation's annual budget. Expenses for finance, risk management, fundraising, and operations account for the remaining 24%.
I'm sure all those editors with decades of experience can do quickly outdo OpenAI and Grok and what have you.
A lot of it is engineers who work on improving the software that runs Wikipedia, and keeping the site running, which you can see happening at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org -- outside of security issues, all the dev work is done in the open. There's constant ongoing work on making Wikipedia and all the related projects work better.
There's also people who do the fundraising, community management, legal defense, etc. Then there's general HR infrastructure around employing hundreds of people.
Basically, that "Hosting was 3.4%. Facilities was 1.4%." point gets brought up, and neglects to mention that you then need to pay for a bunch of people to manage those servers and facilities.
(Disclaimer: I'm an employee of the WMF. I'm just an engineer, so I'm not speaking authoritatively about financial details.)
Wikimedia accepts Paypal, Apple Pay, Google Pay, Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Check, ACH and Money Order.
Pretty hard to argue that mainstream processors don't like them.
Processors charge higher fees to merchants that are in lines of business with high fraud and chargeback risk, has nothing to do with whether they agree with them morally.
They refuse merchants with business they don't like.
If it were the case that processors didn't like what wikipedia publishes, they would not be able to accept payment, not have high fees.
I can't imagine that wikipedia has high chargeback rates, and clearly the processors don't mind doing business with them.
The processing line item probably includes not just the fees that they have to pay to processors, but FX fees, the cost of banking, the cost of paying people to open envelopes, the cost of accounting, etc.
Its actually somewhat common for people who steal credit cards to use non profits like wikipedia to "test" them. Typically such sites have no minimum donation, have donations from all over the world so fraud detection wont think its weird you're spending money half way across the world.
Using a platform with its own fee on top of payment processor fees would explain the 6.4%.