Wikipedia is a democracy (the board is elected by the editors), so it’s not like there is no oversight, it also basically competes with google and facebook which have a lot more money (google alone is at almost 200 billion a year), A competitor can appear and use more aggressive monetization to create a better website using wikipedia’s freely license data (i am pretty sure there is already a startup trying to do that).
The WMF’s financial independence is clearly not at any risk. So what is going on? The official answer is that the WMF thinks you can never have too much money put aside for a rainy day
I actually read the link and I may be tired but i am pretty sure it doesn’t say what he says they are saying (they just want more and more money), it makes me question the trustworthiness of the whole article.
If you write such a critical article i think you should request a response from the foundation (that’s just good journalism IMO).
But if someone thinks they can run a more efficient operation at the wikimedia foundation by all means run in their elections.
Wikipedia is a democracy (the board is elected by the editors), so it’s not like there is no oversight, it also basically competes with google and facebook which have a lot more money (google alone is at almost 200 billion a year), A competitor can appear and use more aggressive monetization to create a better website using wikipedia’s freely license data (i am pretty sure there is already a startup trying to do that).
I actually read the link and I may be tired but i am pretty sure it doesn’t say what he says they are saying (they just want more and more money), it makes me question the trustworthiness of the whole article.
If you write such a critical article i think you should request a response from the foundation (that’s just good journalism IMO).
But if someone thinks they can run a more efficient operation at the wikimedia foundation by all means run in their elections.