Wikipedia is a fundraising project that happens to make an encyclopedia. Having written a couple of articles on this topic, my main concern is that none of the donation money goes to the contributors, and instead goes to an ineffective tech and executive team, whose goal is more fundraising. All while Google makes millions by scraping and presenting Wikipedia's content. http://newslines.org/blog/google-and-wikipedia-best-friends-...
After you count the inflated headcount, yes. If it ran on a reasonable budget of $10 million it would be able to run for many years even on existing reserves.
Does Wikipedia "need" the money? Does any software need any money beyond the cost of servers? If Wikipedia is to remain relevant, it needs money. But everyone has different priorities, and admittedly not everyone can afford to donate a few dollars to support free information. (Disclosure: I'm a community volunteer serving on the Wikimedia Foundation audit committee, so I'm a bit biased.)
8 comments
[ 424 ms ] story [ 1458 ms ] thread374M Uniques in August viewed 17.9 Billion Pages according to https://reportcard.wmflabs.org/#
but main graph in the article suggests ~20M Pageviews in 2015 - which seems to rather downplay the utility and influence of Wikipedia.