Top
Best
New

Posted by greyface- 12 hours ago

Wikipedia was in read-only mode following mass admin account compromise(www.wikimediastatus.net)
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14555

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(techni...

https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/1rllcdg/megathre...

885 points | 310 commentspage 5
noobahoi 9 hours ago|
[flagged]
yabones 11 hours ago||
[flagged]
gadders 11 hours ago||
"The Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, reported a total revenue of $185.4 million for the 2023–2024 fiscal year (ending June 2024). The majority of this funding comes from individual donations, with additional income from investments and the Wikimedia Enterprise commercial API service."

(Unless this was satire and I missed it)

josefresco 10 hours ago|||
What's the operating budget for other websites with comparable traffic? Without context $185 million seems like a lot, but compared to what? Reddit's operating budget for the same timeframe was $1.86 billion.
gadders 10 hours ago||
I agree, but it's not a shoestring budget. They also seem to run a surplus every year:

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) maintains a significant financial surplus and a growing, healthy balance sheet, with net assets reaching approximately $271.5 million in the 2023–2024 fiscal year. This surplus is largely driven by consistent, high-volume, small-dollar donations, with total annual revenue often exceeding $180 million.

josefresco 10 hours ago||
Surplus is a good thing right? Long term stability, responsible financial management, healthy margins? If they said one year "You know what? We're good on donations this year." it would never be restarted.
skrtskrt 10 hours ago|||
I think the question might be how much money, effort, and expertise is going into the platform itself.
cursuve 11 hours ago|||
They are rather well funded for a non-profit and the reserves in the endowment fund are very healthy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti...

https://wikimediafoundation.org/who-we-are/financial-reports...

cm2012 11 hours ago|||
Wikipedia probably actively wastes $100m per year
ale42 10 hours ago||
On what? I'd be curious to read more (documented sources)
kbolino 10 hours ago|||
Where and how they spent their money is on p. 21 of this PDF [1] which can be obtained from this official source [2]. This is just a high-level breakdown, but it does illustrate that, for example, more than twice as much is spent on "Donation processing expenses" ($7.5M) as "Internet hosting" ($3.1M), and that the largest line item, by far, is "Salaries and benefits" ($106M).

[1]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/W...

[2]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/annualreports/2023-2024-annu...

streetfighter64 10 hours ago||
Well obviously salaries will be the highest expense in any organization like this. The more interesting question is if it's salaries to security programmers or teachers at an african womens' coding bootcamp (yes they did spend money on that, and yes it's probably useful, but hardly what people think of when they see those "donate now to keep wikipedia alive" banners). A big percentage probably goes to their CEO who does who knows what.
kbolino 10 hours ago||
There are a couple of ways to approach this information. One is to compare to the past. For example, comparing with 2008-2009 [1], they now spend 3.75 times as much on hosting, but 48 times as much on salaries, illustrating a more-than-tenfold relative growth in salaries compared to hosting. While hosting is not now nor ever was their only relevant expense, it is a good anchor point.

Another key difference over the last 15 years has been the introduction of awards and grants, which didn't exist then but now comprise $26.8M (15%) of their expenditures. This is where most of the ideological/controversial spending actually goes, rather than the salaries per se, but even more to the point, this one line item is more than 3 times their entire inflation-adjusted budget from 15 years ago ($5.6M times 150% CPI = $8.4M) and is still more than if we adjusted their entire budget using the hosting cost as an index ($5.6M times 3.75 = $21M).

[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/WMF_Annu...

streetfighter64 9 hours ago||
Look, I'm not defending wikipedia, I'd just like to point out that comparing hosting to salaries is a quite strange metric. Hosting is cheap and relatively constant, adding features to the site or paying admins to maintain the quality of edits is scalable. How does throwing more money at hosting make a better product? It's not like the servers can't handle the requests.

Using hosting costs as an index is nonsensical. I wasn't able to find numbers for 2009, but since 2015 the monthly page views have remained almost exactly constant. So you might as well claim that they're vastly overpaying for hosting since inflation from 2008 is way less than 3.75x.

kbolino 9 hours ago||
I picked hosting because it's a line item that exists across all of their budgets, it's a rough proxy for a web business's non-salary expenses, it's a big part of what you think you're donating to based upon Wikipedia's own language in their fundraising drives, and if nothing else, it's way more forgiving to the growth of their expenses than consumer price inflation is.

Ultimately every person has to decide for themselves whether they think WMF is a worthy recipient for their donations, but it is in no way operating on a shoestring budget nor staffed by volunteers anymore.

cm2012 8 hours ago|||
Depends how you define waste if you agree. But you could cut $100m yearly and core Wikipedia would still run great.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...

Markoff 11 hours ago|||
please stop spreading lies, Wikipedia is swimming in money and they have money for years or even decades if they would not waste them on various seminars and other nonsense unrelated to running Wikipedia
SoftTalker 10 hours ago||
Society and culture were fine before Wikipedia. I could argue that they have degraded substantially since Wikipedia came into being (but correlation is not causation, in either direction).
MagicMoonlight 9 hours ago||
They have no incentive to improve the site, because they’re a for-profit entity.

Despite the constant screeching for donations, the entire site is owned by a company with shareholders. All the “donations” go to them. They already met their funding needs for the next century a long time ago, this is all profit.

charonn0 8 hours ago|
That's a serious accusation. Can you elaborate? What is the name of the company? Why does the Wikimedia Foundation claim ownership? And if you're referring to the Wikimedia Foundation, then what do you mean by "shareholders"?
Uhhrrr 10 hours ago||
How do they know? Has this been published in a Reliable Source?
nhubbard 10 hours ago|
This is the official Wikimedia Foundation status page for the whole of Wikipedia, so it's a reliable primary source.
vova_hn2 10 hours ago||
Actually, usage of primary sources is kinda complicated [0], generally Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...

jkaplowitz 10 hours ago||
Yeah, but the purpose of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia (a tertiary source) is to relatively neutrally summarize the consensus of those who spend the time and effort to analyze and interpret the primary sources (and thus produce secondary sources), or if necessary to cite other tertiary summaries of those.

In a discussion forum like HN, pointing to primary sources is the most reliable input to the other readers' research on/synthesis of their own secondary interpretation of what may be going on. Pointing to other secondary interpretations/analyses is also useful, but not without including the primary source so that others can - with apologies to the phrase currently misused by the US right wing - truly do their own research.

Uhhrrr 9 hours ago||
If you spend any time on Wikipedia, you'll find that secondary sources from an existing list are always preferred. The mandate from the link in GP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) extends, or at least is interpreted to mean to extend to, actively punishing editors who attempt to analyze or interpret primary sources.

My original post was a joke about this.

skrtskrt 10 hours ago|
Long past time to eliminate JavaScript from existence
krisoft 6 hours ago||
You will have a long trek to do that. We have a javascript interpreter deployed at the second Sun-Earth Lagrange point.

https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/18/23206110/james-webb-space...

dgxyz 5 hours ago||
I live happily in the knowledge that in 20000 years when that eventually drifts off into another system and is picked up by aliens that they will reverse engineer it and wonder why the fuck '5'-'4'=1
dgxyz 10 hours ago||
This.

Actually fuck the whole dynamic web. Just give us hypertext again and build native apps.

Edit: perhaps I shouldn't say this on an VC driven SaaS wankfest forum...

rainingmonkey 9 hours ago|||
You may be interested in https://geminiprotocol.net/
dgxyz 8 hours ago||
Yes that's exactly what we should be using. Totally agree.
dlivingston 9 hours ago||||
I mean sure, but that's never going to happen, so complaining about it is just shaking your fist at the sky. The only way it will change is if the economics of the web change. Maybe that is the economics of developer time (it being easier/fast/more resilient and thus cheaper to do native dev), or maybe it is that dynamic scripting leads to such extreme vulnerabilities that ease of deployment/development/consumer usage change the macroeconomics of web deployment enough to shift the scales to local.

But if there's one thing I've learned over the years as a technologist, it's this: the "best technology" is not often the "technology that wins".

Engineering is not done in a vacuum. Indeed, my personal definition of engineering is that it is "constraint-based applied science". Yes, some of those constraints are "VC buxx" wanting to see a return on investment, but even the OSS world has its own set of constraints - often overlapping. Time, labor, existing infrastructure, domain knowledge.

dgxyz 8 hours ago||
I think it will change.

The entire web is built on geopolitical stability and cooperation. That is no longer certain. We already have supply chains failing (RAM/storage) meaning that we will be hardware constrained for the foreseeable future. That puts the onus on efficiency and web apps are NOT efficient however we deliver them.

People are also now very concerned about data sovereignty whereas they previously were not. If it's not in your hands or on your computer than it is at risk.

The VC / SaaS / cloud industry is about to get hit very very hard via this and regulation. At that point, it's back to native as delivery is not about being tied to a network control point.

I've been around long enough to see the centralisation and decentralisation cycles. We're heading the other way now

dlivingston 7 hours ago||
I think on a high level we're in agreement then. All of those points you mentioned are constraints.

> "VC / SaaS / cloud industry is about to get hit very very hard via ... regulation"

can you explain?

dgxyz 5 hours ago||
Why? Well mostly due to the unpredictable behaviour of the country which seems to have the control points of most infra these days.

How? Well the numerous non-US sovereign technology initiatives are going to be incentivised through regulation with local compliance being the only option going forwards.

As a non-US person I am already speaking to people at other orgs in similar space as ours who are looking at options there.

streetfighter64 9 hours ago|||
Imagine if wikipedia was a native app, what this vuln would have caused. I for one prefer using stuff in the browser where at least it's sandboxed. Also, there's nothing stopping you from disabling JS in your browser.
Dylan16807 4 hours ago|||
If it was a native app it wouldn't be grabbing one of the hosted files and running it as code.
streetfighter64 3 hours ago||
Have you never seen a native app's auto-update get hijacked by malware? It happened (yet again) last month [0]

Tons of native apps also have plugins or addons, which (surprise surprise) is just code downloaded from some central repo, and run with way less sandboxing than JS.

[0] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/notepad-plus-...

Dylan16807 2 hours ago||
That's pretty far from hosting the program in the same spot the content it manages is hosted, and also installing fresh versions instantly.
dgxyz 8 hours ago|||
Wikipedia should be straight hypermedia. Simple.