Conversation

Notices

1. lnxw48a1 (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Sunday, 20-Sep-2020 16:21:18 EDT lnxw48a1
   According to @simsa03, #Wikimedia Foundation has USD$111M in the bank. https://pleroma.site/objects/f97dbb44-c697-45ad-842f-e31ba2c3c4ce
   
   Yet, #Wikipedia is constantly begging for more. There's only so much donation money available from the general public. By trying to hog it all for themselves, they're reducing the amount that is available to other causes, some of which may be equally or more worthy of support.
   1. mangeurdenuage (mangeurdenuage@loadaverage.org)'s status on Monday, 21-Sep-2020 12:05:16 EDT mangeurdenuage

      in reply to
      Do we know how much they spend each month/year ?
      1. lnxw48a1 (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Monday, 21-Sep-2020 12:33:47 EDT lnxw48a1

         in reply to
         @mangeurdenuage As a non-profit organization, there are forms filed with the IRS (federal tax collection agency) and with at least one state government, so the information is available. But remember that almost all of their work is done by volunteer contributors.
         
         Also, as @sl points out, a little scarcity of funds breeds care in spending. If for no other reason than forcing choices earlier. Google is an example. At any time, they have 2-3 messaging platforms ... and a couple of others being developed. Every few years, they kill off the released platforms and launch a couple of replacements. If they were money-constrained, they would be forced to choose one and give it their full attention.
      2. GeniusMusing (geniusmusing@nu.federati.net)'s status on Monday, 21-Sep-2020 12:48:37 EDT GeniusMusing

         in reply to
         @lnxw48a1 @simsa03 @sl @mangeurdenuage
         Looking here Charity Navigator Rating for Wikimedia Foundation
         https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212
         It looks like they have $22,844,336 in the bank (at the time of the filing) and it matches with the 990 filing earlier this year but is also for 2017-2018 fiscal year so I am not sure what funds they actually have currently.
         https://nu.federati.net/url/275421
         They do have $134,949,570 in net assets, being described as "The difference between a charity's assets and its liabilities. Although charities do not exist to make money, they do work to build and maintain reasonable reserves of net assets. Growing its net assets helps a charity outpace inflation and sustain future program activities.".
         This could be the value of buildings/servers/computers/etc that they own including the $22,844,336.
         Are there any other sources that I missed?
   2. musicman (musicman@nu.federati.net)'s status on Monday, 21-Sep-2020 17:09:10 EDT musicman

      in reply to
      They do get 4 stars from CN though: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212
      
      unlike, say, the American Red Cross (or Susan Komen): https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277
      
      Fun fact: #FSF also gets 4 stars, which appears to be the highest possible.
   3. musicman (musicman@nu.federati.net)'s status on Monday, 21-Sep-2020 17:09:12 EDT musicman

      in reply to
      They do get 4 stars from CN though: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212
      
      unlike, say, the American Red Cross (or Susan Komen): https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277
      
      Fun fact: #FSF also gets 4 stars, which appears to be the highest possible.
      1. lnxw48a1 (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Wednesday, 23-Sep-2020 21:27:38 EDT lnxw48a1

         in reply to
         Just reading an article about #Mozilla's out-of-control administration costs and see some grumbles about #Wikimedia / #Wikipedia there also. http://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html
         1. lnxw48a1 (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Wednesday, 23-Sep-2020 21:28:37 EDT lnxw48a1

            in reply to
            "Wikimedia has the advantage over Mozilla that all contributors to its main project are unpaid - which only makes the expenses all the more mindblowing. Wikimedia, like Mozilla, has had a lot of side projects."
            1. musicman (musicman@nu.federati.net)'s status on Thursday, 24-Sep-2020 09:22:03 EDT musicman

               in reply to
               not convinced side projects are a problem at all, but top exec pay going up 400% is tone deaf as best
               1. lnxw48a1 (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Thursday, 24-Sep-2020 13:20:34 EDT lnxw48a1

                  in reply to
                  @musicman I agree about exec pay.
                  
                  As for side projects, in their new, limited-resource world, every new project takes resources away from #Firefox, #Thunderbird, and #Rust. Sometimes that's worth the cost, sometimes it isn't, but take a look at how many projects they've abandoned (such as their mobile OS).
                  1. musicman (musicman@nu.federati.net)'s status on Friday, 25-Sep-2020 09:34:45 EDT musicman

                     in reply to
                     fair point. The side-project vs project distinction is not really important. What is important is whether resources are being used properly and the article makes a convincing point that they have not.
                     
                     I pretty much use #Firefox 100% these days. Safari and Firefox are all I have installed on the primary machine. As long as I am working from home, work machine is going to be primary machine. I'm not going to mess about with changing monitor cables and I don't have USB-C on my personal laptop.
                     
                     Although, I got (for free!) a couple of new-to-me laptops I haven't even had a chance to boot up. ugh.
                  2. musicman (musicman@nu.federati.net)'s status on Friday, 25-Sep-2020 17:19:23 EDT musicman

                     in reply to
                     vaguely on topic: https://peertube.uno/videos/watch/a8493008-a9b9-4de6-8e8a-5aac70f6e45a