Comment by elemenopy

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...