Comment by such_a_casual

10 years ago

So you are going to ignore everything I said to talk about what you want to talk about? cool.

Wikipedia's financial statements are easy to find and they provide them for you: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports#2010....

I'll go over my first point, and you can decide whether you want to continue to ignore my actual statements:

1. They use server costs to plea for donations. This is deceptive and dishonest advertising. In certain years, wikipedia abused the public's perception of server costs as their main selling point. Even when server costs are not necessarily their main selling point, they are more often than not the very first cost listed on their advertisements.

http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/11/28/wikipedia_chugging_fullsize...

If you were to poll wikipedia donators, what % of wikipedia's total costs would they think are server costs if they are going by wikipedia's advertisements?

In 2010, wikipedia states they received the following in donations: $14,490,273

They list "internet hosting" costs for that year as: $1,056,703

< 7%

In 2011, wikipedia's stated they recieved: $23,020,127

with "internet hosting" costs of: $1,799,943

< 8%

Please stop twisting my words out of love for wikipedia. Wikipedia deceives their users about where their money is actually going and asks for MILLIONS of dollars more than they actually need.

To quote from the screenshot you linked of a typical Wikimedia Foundation advertisement: [1]

"We ... have costs like any other top site: servers, power, rent, programs, staff and legal help."

I count six costs listed there. Doesn't look like "pretty shady" advertising to me.

Also, "internet hosting costs" in the financial statements isn't all the money spent on IT-related costs. For example, computer equipment is counted as an investment which then depreciates. In the 2011 financial statements you linked, Wikimedia spent $3.2m on computer equipment and $1m on depreciation (though depreciation would also include things like furniture). [2]

You also haven't provided any evidence for your claim Wikimedia promotes "purposeful backlinking to their for profit sites".

Finally, although it's an imperfect way to analyse charities, Charity Navigator gives Wikimedia Foundation 93.5/100, an excellent score. [3]

1. http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/11/28/wikipedia_chugging_fullsize...

2. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/ac/FINAL...

3. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary...