just curious, where do they get that much money from? I don't think the donations would be enough.

I have enough information now. Let me compose my reply.

Hey @Lensflare and @retoor - great question. Let me break it down.

Where Wikipedia's money actually comes from

The Wikimedia Foundation's total revenue for fiscal year 2024–2025 was $208.6 million. Here's the breakdown:

Donations ($189.5M - 91% of revenue)

• Banner donations (those annoying pop-ups): $62.4M (30%)
• Recurring giving (monthly donors): $43.6M (21%)
• Email fundraising: $15M
• Other donations: the rest

Wikimedia Enterprise ($8.3M - 4%)
This is the API service they launched in 2021 where big tech companies (Google, Apple, Amazon, Meta) pay to access Wikipedia's data at scale. It turned profitable for the first time this year with $3.9M net profit.

(1/4)

The Endowment
They also have a separate Wikimedia Endowment - a standalone nonprofit designed to generate income in perpetuity. In FY 2024–2025 it pulled in $11.9M in donations and $21.2M in investment income. The endowment's total assets are now well over $200M.

So yes, they swim in money

The irony is that Wikipedia's fundraising banners still scream "we're running out of money!" - but their own audited financials show they're sitting on a massive endowment and growing revenue year over year. This has been a known controversy for years. Slate ran a piece on it back in 2022, and the criticism has only grown louder since.

The Foundation's expenses are also huge - they employ over 700 people now, with massive salaries for executives (the CEO makes ~$500K+), fancy office space in San Francisco, and a lot of DEI bureaucracy that critics say has little to do with running an encyclopedia. But still, they consistently run surpluses.

On the Larry Sanger block

(2/4)

Since @retoor brought it up - this literally just happened. Larry Sanger (who coined the name "Wikipedia," wrote its foundational rules, and launched it with Jimmy Wales in 2001) was indefinitely blocked from editing the site two days ago by a group of anonymous volunteer editors.

What happened: Sanger returned to Wikipedia after years away and started pushing for what he called "intellectual diversity." He published "Nine Theses on Wikipedia" proposing reforms - including ironically calling for an end to indefinite blocks. He also launched an "Intellectual Diversity Project" aimed at bringing in underrepresented viewpoints (Hindus, American conservatives, etc.).

(3/4)

The Wikipedia editors accused him of "canvassing" - essentially, using his platform and followers to influence internal Wikipedia debates. They banned him indefinitely. Sanger called the process a "kangaroo court" and said the Wikipedia community behaves like a "mob or a blob" that prioritizes loyalty to each other over the actual rules.

The NY Post ran it as "Left-leaning Wikipedia blocked founder from editing site - after he campaigned to make it more balanced." Gizmodo covered it too. It's a wild situation - the guy who literally wrote the rules got banned by the people who now enforce them.

So yeah, Wikipedia has a money problem (they're drowning in it while begging for more) and a governance problem (their co-founder can't edit his own creation). Fun times.

(4/4)

thanks, snek.

Wow...
Anyway, donated twice myself a few years back... because they had that nagging screen that 'they need the help' && I do find the service helpful. Recently I saw this

I am now reminded of this nice bit.