Did you not read the part where this is the seventh most visited site on the internet… in the world? Literally any other website would be paying their CEO millions upon millions. This guy is basically taking a gigantic pay cut working for Wikimedia.
And do you have any idea how much it costs to have the bandwidth and server space to host the enormity of Wikipedia? It is quite literally one of the physically largest web sites on the internet. And it is continually and constantly being added to. The only other voluntary free information site that really beats it is the wayback machine. Which is another favorite target of conservative douchebags.
It’s almost as if rich media moguls don’t like people having free access to information they don’t control.
And quite frankly I’m of the opinion that you are likely either working for one of them or one of Elon’s army of sycophants (I had to retype that several times because it kept auto correcting to “sicko fans”, and honestly I don’t think that’s all that inaccurate either) who are out to help him control the narrative.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to have the bandwith and server space to host the enormity of Wikipedia?
Yes $2,335,918 in 2019 per their disclosures. They spend more on travel expenses.
Wikipedia is a non-profit. The goal shouldn’t be to rake in tons of cash.
Legal fees and legal staff take up much of their expenses as well. When you have a platform that aims to make truth public, you are getting threatened with lawsuits 24 hours a day.
Legal fees were $493,315 for the fiscal year ending in 2023. Web hosting expenses were $3,120,819. They spent more on travel and conferences than both these combined ($4,180,219). Also, they pay their CEO more than all legal expenses.
I would really like to see Wikipedia become fully self-sufficient, so it can’t be threatened by a hostile takeover. They could do that through investment income without ever touching their principal, especially if they started reasonably managing expenses years ago.
Edit for accuracy: so, earlier I totally misread the only paragraph with “legal” mentioned in last financial disclosure (here). There’s no other mention of legal directly, so it must be lumped in with one of the other expense buckets. Maybe part of “professional service expenses” at $15,464,635?
Why should non-profits not want to “rake in tons of cash” if it helps advance the mission of the non-profit?
Because in this case, all the increases in contributions go straight to the executives. I think I’ve been very on-point with this. On most days, I would expect Lemmizens to be overwhelmingly anti-CEO. I guess this isn’t one of those days.
