[Okx]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't seem interested in this. Their revenue is more than enough be able to invest and sustain the site forever, but they just increase expenses on non-core outgoings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER

[NewsaHackO]

Am I misssing something or is Wikipedia net positive 200M? If this is true, that's eye opening. Weird given how much they beg for money on every article.

[andersa]

The amount of money moving through Wikipedia is absolutely mind blowing, and next to none of that is even being used to sustain the site. Hope those still donating to it feel smart about what they're supporting...

[cg5280]

You aren't missing anything. This has been an increasingly popular criticism of Wikipedia. They are doing just fine financially.

[dghlsakjg]

They have that much in assets. I'm not sure what that actually looks like in terms of cash vs. non-liquid assets vs. assets with strings attached.

If you look at revenue vs spend they are net positive by about 7mm last year.

[lurk2]

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

[pastage]

You pay for Wikipedia because you want it to prosper. The political part of Wikipedia is vital to make it succeed. Even though everyone uses Wikipedia not everyone knows why it succeeded and why it is important.

The fluff is important to have a engaged super users. It is also important to get acceptance in certain circles.

[Levitz]

Can you make the case as to why we should want a political, super user based version of Wikipedia to prosper?

[fruitworks]

what circles? I would like to have greater transparency into what this cabal of superusers doing, how are they recieving the cash flows, etc.

It just seems like every wiki results in defensive mod cabals