Elon Musk goes after Wikipedia, asks where all the money goes

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 910   +280
Staff
Facepalm: Despite the recurrent issues experienced by his Twitter-X platform, Elon Musk frequently targets new adversaries. The serial entrepreneur is now attempting to engage in a feud with Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that, according to Musk, requests excessive funding from its users.

Elon Musk posted a series of tweets about Wikipedia over the weekend, questioning why the Wikimedia Foundation requests "so much money." The American non-profit organization, established in 2003 by Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales, is responsible for hosting and managing Wikipedia and other wiki-related projects. The foundation frequently solicits donations from its users, and Musk appears to be dissatisfied with this recurring request.

According to Musk, Wikipedia "definitely" doesn't require all that money to remain online. Musk tweeted that you can "literally" store a copy of the entire text on your phone. He asked for further clarification because "inquiring minds" want to know. Musk also included a link to Wikipedia's official financial report and operating budget, in which the Wikimedia Foundation allocates 43 percent of the funds for "direct support" to its websites, 32 percent for community support, 13 percent for administration and governance, and 12 percent for fundraising.

Wikipedia is one of the most frequently visited websites, or rather, a vast network of websites on the internet today, and its servers require a reasonable amount of funding to keep everything running smoothly. Nonetheless, Musk continues to inquire and even proposes his own donation idea: he is willing to provide $1 billion to Wales' foundation if Wikipedia changes its name to Dickipedia.

Elon Musk expressed concerns about Wikipedia's fundraising practices and suggested a name change as part of his efforts to promote accuracy. While some Twitter users raised issues regarding the reliability of Musk's tweets, it's essential to note that Wikipedia, a prominent online encyclopedia, relies on donations for its operation. In 2022, the Wikimedia Foundation reported revenue of $154 million with total expenses of $145 million.

Musk, meanwhile, recently launched a $1 annual fee for X users in select regions to boost platform revenue.

Permalink to story.

 
The man makes a fair point. Much like the Linux foundation, well over 90% of wikipedia's funding ends up at either political organizations or "special interest groups". It doesnt cost much to run wikipedia and the company makes hundreds of millions in donations per year.

Most "charities" or "donation driven" organizations are scams at best and fronts at worst.
 
This from the man who was convinced Twitter had vastly more people and functions than it needed, and then watched it's reputation, revenues and content accuracy all enter freefall without them.

He's probably embarrassed at how often Wikipedia is used to rebut obviously dumb info in tweets.
 
The man makes a fair point. Much like the Linux foundation, well over 90% of wikipedia's funding ends up at either political organizations or "special interest groups". It doesnt cost much to run wikipedia and the company makes hundreds of millions in donations per year.

Most "charities" or "donation driven" organizations are scams at best and fronts at worst.
Do you have any hard proof to back up your ridiculous claims? At what political organizations and special interest groups does the money end up exactly? You claim Wikipedia makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year when this article literally states $154 million in revenue. Where is the rest of that invisible money you seem to think exists? Maybe you should donate your money to more worthy sites like Steve Bannon's podcast or whatever nonsense Alex Jones is doing these days. Conspiracy theorists deserve your money much more than a useful site like Wikipedia.
 
The man makes a fair point. Much like the Linux foundation, well over 90% of wikipedia's funding ends up at either political organizations or "special interest groups". It doesnt cost much to run wikipedia and the company makes hundreds of millions in donations per year.
I think that falls under the 31% section: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2022-annual-report/financials/
Wikimedia Foundation said:
31% Direct Support to Volunteers and Readers
Wikimedia projects have global reach. This is enabled by the diverse work of volunteers from local communities around the world. We provide grants, legal support and other resources to support contributors. We back community outreach events and advocacy for growing free knowledge.
They further break down how the money is spent here (for the upcoming year): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2023-2024/Foundation_Details
To add on, here is an actual list of the projects that Wikimedia operates: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Our_projects
- Wikipedia
- Wiktionary
- Wikiquote
- Wikibooks
- Wikisource
- Wikispecies
- Wikinews
- Wikiversity
- Wikivoyage
- Wikimedia Commons
- Wikidata
- Wikifunctions
- MediaWiki
- Meta-Wiki
- Wikimedia Incubator
- Wikimedia Cloud Services
- Wikimedia Foundation Governance

A majority of these I haven't heard of and could probably be cut without people batting an eye. For example, I had never heard of this which falls under cloud services: https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/
It's somewhat new though and may be a revenue generator.
 
The man makes a fair point. Much like the Linux foundation, well over 90% of wikipedia's funding ends up at either political organizations or "special interest groups". It doesnt cost much to run wikipedia and the company makes hundreds of millions in donations per year.

Most "charities" or "donation driven" organizations are scams at best and fronts at worst.

Prove it
 
The man makes a fair point. Much like the Linux foundation, well over 90% of wikipedia's funding ends up at either political organizations or "special interest groups". It doesnt cost much to run wikipedia and the company makes hundreds of millions in donations per year.

Most "charities" or "donation driven" organizations are scams at best and fronts at worst.

No he doesn’t? He doesn’t make any point at all. He just slings some random allegation with no additional context our source. That’s not making a point that’s being an attention seeking dickwad sad that the spotlight hasn’t been on him for three and a half minutes.

I’m sure criticism can be levelled at the Wikimedia foundation. Valid criticism can be made against anyone. But what Musk provides isn’t anything like that. And he proves that point himself, quite succinctly, by asking them to change their name to Dickipedia. He’s less mature than my three year old… and my three year old probably doesn’t have much interesting to say on the topic of Wikimedia…
 
JFC. Doesn't this narcissistic "billionaire" have enough going on in his life without making sensless claims with the weak justification of "people want to know". No Elon, people didn't CARE until YOU decided to stick your penguin nose into it. He'sproof that money does NOT buy happiness (nor common sense apparently)
I just don't understand how the same guy who created the Tesla and SpaceX wastes his time and talent on such petty pursuits.
 
I think that falls under the 31% section: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2022-annual-report/financials/

They further break down how the money is spent here (for the upcoming year): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2023-2024/Foundation_Details
To add on, here is an actual list of the projects that Wikimedia operates: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Our_projects
- Wikipedia
- Wiktionary
- Wikiquote
- Wikibooks
- Wikisource
- Wikispecies
- Wikinews
- Wikiversity
- Wikivoyage
- Wikimedia Commons
- Wikidata
- Wikifunctions
- MediaWiki
- Meta-Wiki
- Wikimedia Incubator
- Wikimedia Cloud Services
- Wikimedia Foundation Governance

A majority of these I haven't heard of and could probably be cut without people batting an eye. For example, I had never heard of this which falls under cloud services: https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/
It's somewhat new though and may be a revenue generator.
I think google uses wikipedia cloud services for the little info box in their search
 
I donated to Wikipedia for over a decade till their donation drives doubled up in frequency, commonly asking me for donations each and every time I'd enter the site. More concerningly their editorial policy has been interesting over the years where some articles (usually surrounding individuals) could change multiple times a day. Personally I still find them to be an invaluable tool but I saw fit a couple of years ago (2018 I think?) to take the donations I'd usually give them and purchase a subscription to Nature instead.
 
Incredible...
One of the guys who helped invent/create Wikipedia said don't use it... He said it was taken over by Chinese mediators and human bot farms to rig the system for constant editing and changing. They also witnessed (in real time) the CIA changing documents and rewording articles. The Wiki database is no longer is controlled by public interests.


Elon Musk and most everyone who gets real news is aware of this^ and of Wikipedia's illegitimacy. Vast amount of the populace has understood this for many, many years now.

So, it is crazy to see how many people simply don't know any of Wikipedia's history... & just jumped strait to how elon emotionally hurts them... type rants.



 
Exactly. From Wikipedia I only use technical-scientific articles, and I do it with many cross-references. Almost everything else is permeated with manipulations and biases. The biggest disgust has been since they started basing entire articles on what the media says, and many call them "reputable sources." you can clearly see the agendas and biases of many of the "Wikipedians" , sometimes extreme, you just have to read the discussion ("Talk") pages. many undoubtedly work for third parties. Damn, I've seen a page that says one thing exactly as the reference it cites says, and then someone changed a word to make the text on Wikipedia say the opposite, and since people are lazy they don't read the original
 
The man makes a fair point. Much like the Linux foundation, well over 90% of wikipedia's funding ends up at either political organizations or "special interest groups". It doesnt cost much to run wikipedia and the company makes hundreds of millions in donations per year.

Most "charities" or "donation driven" organizations are scams at best and fronts at worst.
Yes. We can all trust someone who calls a real hero a pedophile out of narcissistic jealousy.
 
Back