Firstly, there's less conflation these days - go see recent banner wording for yourself. Secondly, if you're still just acknowledging Wikipedia hosting costs - and thus pretending there's (for example) no legal work necessary for it - I don't think people are getting through to you as they should.
(And no, I'm not saying all legal work we do is a strict necessity for Wikipedia. Some is a strict necessity, and some is strategic e.g. an amicus, or the NSA lawsuit - but the latter does help secure a healthy environment for it and future projects that might want to take its place.)
bhickey|1 year ago
From your phrasing (still) it seems like you might've confused me with the person you initially replied to.
I was comparing technical infrastructure costs to award/grant costs because most critics are going to view the former as essential and the latter as mission creep. I don't have any insight, nor do I have any inclination to criticize, your payroll.
bawolff|1 year ago
No, you were comparing a small part of technical infrastructure costs to grant cost.
Is every dollar spent mission critical to running wikipedia? Obviously not. But that doesn't mean its runnable on 3 million dollars.