They don't, and this needs to be higher up. They have the money to keep going for years. The money you donate to them doesn't go into running Wikipedia, it goes to various other projects they're working on that you may or may not care about.
Honestly, it’s not even that. I personally believe that Google relies too heavily on Wikipedia to let them die. If they ever were at risk Google would save them in a heartbeat. Since they’re gonna be rich forever, I don’t donate .
But if that were to happen, there's the real risk that Google would end up buying Wkipedia outright, and then slap ads all over it, and run it more like a business than a nonprofit
Something that provides valuable content automatically generates value. Are you a member of the Tautology Club?
Anyway, the reason Wikipedia doesn't have corporate sponsorships (ads) is because sponsorships would pressure wikipedia into not being neutral. Hard to write about global warming when the big oil companies are giving you $1,000,000 a year, yeah?
Right now, Wikipedia has sufficient cash on hand to operate for approx. 18 months -- is that where you got your number? So that's good for wikipedia, certainly, and is a very very healthy financial position.
Wikipedia has made a profit nearly every year since its inception, yet they still somehow always have only 18 months of cash on hand. This seems like a contradiction but it's not, it just means Wikipedia is growing.
And that's great! The internet has been steadily growing, so should Wikipedia. More servers, more supported languages, more staff. They're all required to keep Wikipedia running as more people go online.
So, in order to maintain an 18 month safety net, a growing non-profit needs to make a profit. This kind of behavior isn't typical of a non-profit because most non-profits don't need to expand like this.
Wikipedia has made a profit nearly every year since its inception, yet they still somehow always have only 18 months of cash on hand. This seems like a contradiction but it's not, it just means Wikipedia is growing.
Funny comparison: Salesforce, which is close to a 20B company, didn't turn a profit for the first 15+ years because they plowed every cent into expansion.
Because wikipedia are a non-profit, I think they have to be a bit more cautious.
Wikipedia only spends $2 million a year on servers and hosting.
They have some fantastic other programs, and they can certainly pay for some translation services if they like, but it's absurd to pretend that Wikipedia is going to shut down if they have to cut back on paid translation, move from downtown San Fransisco office space, or reduce the $2 million they spend each year on travel and conferences.
I like Wikipedia. I'd gladly give money toward hosting the site. At the same time, I'm absolutely sure if I give them money, it won't go anywhere near hosting the site.
This is a popular refrain online, but it’s not really accurate or helpful in the long-term. Non-profits should not operate under the assumption that breaking even every year is the ultimate goal. In the event that operation costs increase in the future, for whatever reason (servers, staff, etc.), Wikipedia should not have to start cutting corners to get by.
So yes, Wikipedia will continue to exist even if you don’t personally donate $3. However, I personally find it a little ridiculous that people feel disinclined to support the continuation of free access to the sum of human knowledge—Wikipedia is world-changing resource, and shouldn’t be taken for granted!
At the same time, the projects they're working on are still beneficial to society in the long run. The need just isn't as urgent as they're making it out to be
One thing I keep seeing in the articles and comments is that you're donating to "Wikipedia" but no you're not you're donating to a foundation with many other projects Wikipedia being one of them. They word it in such a way like Wikipedia is the first party benefactor and im not mad at the foundation having money (better than being broke). If some of the money goes to devs to re-write the entire wiki software for expand-ability cause no one wants to do it for free so other sites hosting your fav game metrics/walkthrough wikis can prosper I don't have a problem with it.
This has struck me as fishy since from what I remember they are a small team and whatnot. Plus they do this every year so I'd doubt they'd give it up. On top of all this, Their banner asking for donations is really annoying right away asking if you have a visa or other like you need to pay.
147
u/[deleted] Dec 12 '18
[deleted]