Thread by @echetus

If you use Wikipedia, you've seen pop-ups like this. If you're like me, you may have donated as a result.

Wikipedia is an amazing website, and the appeals seem heartfelt. But I've now learnt the money isn't going where I thought...

The organisation which administers Wikipedia - to whom the money goes - is the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Wikimedia is a San Francisco non-profit with 400 employees - which has exploded in size in recent years.

In a decade, Wikimedia's spending has soared: from $10 million in 2010 to $112 million by 2020.
This suprised me, seeing as Wikipedia seems to be functionally the same website it was 10 years ago. So what explains this huge increase?

Maybe more people use the site, making it more expensive to run?
No: 2021 website hosting cost $2.4 million - which is LESS than it did in 2012.
In fact, according the Wikimedia Foundation's own website, less than half of what they spend goes on directly supporting the website.

Bear in mind - Wikipedia used to be an incredibly cheap, volunteer run website. Watch a minute of this video of Jimmy Wales talking about how Wikipedia operated back in 2005:

So where is the money going? Well, a lot of it Wikimedia gives away to other organisations. And a significant portion of their staff are employed in that process. From 2012 to 2020, the spending on salaries increased fivefold, and $22.9 million was given in grants.

At this point, you should know that while Wikipedia emphasises a "Neutral Point of View", Wikimedia is openly politicized. It is a full participant in America's culture wars, and this helps us understand how they spend the donations.

Let's take a look at two big recipients.

The SeRCH Foundation received a quarter million dollars of donor cash. Glancing at the website, you could assume it was about the admirable goal of minority representation in STEM

However on closer inspection, it turns out to be a bit more unusual than that. They're proponents of an "Intersectional Scientific Method" involving "hyperspace"(?)

Their output is extremely long YouTube videos which get about 50 views a time

In the videos they discuss issues in science like objectivity (they're against it) and bias (they're in favour).

There's been one new video in the last year.

Also enjoying Wikimedia's largesse was Borealis Philanthropy. Borealis is yet another grant giving organisation: They're even more political, and fully committed to driving America's cultural revolution.

Wikimedia gave $250,000 to Borealis's Racial Equity in Journalism Fund. That money was then cascaded down to a dozens of ideologically aligned news outlets across the US.

Thus, the money you give to keep Wikipedia online is diverted to bankroll the inescapable American culture war.

Back in 2017, a Wikipedian called Guy Macon wrote a strident article entitled "Wikipedia has a Cancer". He predicted Wikimedia's runaway spending would bankrupt Wikipedia, resulting in its takeover by Facebook or Google.

Since then, Wikimedia's budget has almost doubled.

What Macon misunderstood is that orgs like Wikimedia are not cancers. They are parasites that cannot survive outside their host. Almost nobody would donate to Wikimedia so it could spend money on these causes - without Wikipedia, Wikimedia would starve.

In the west, an advanced industry of NGOs, charities, and foundations has evolved which funds so much of the weirdness in our daily lives. A caste of activist-professionals have emerged, which inevitably capture any non-profit with spare cash.

This is what is sometimes called The Blob: a powerful but inconspicuous force that has given us the dysfunction of the 21st century.

Wikipedia is an amazing and important website. But it doesn't need your money. It has enough to stay online, improve and grown.
What it needs more donations for is to fund one side in the United States' culture war.

A sad footnote to this: In 2021 SeRCH ran their own funding programme, "Hot Science Summer".

In deciding who to fund, the key criteria was use of the Intersectional Scientific method. Everything else - a scientific background, data - was optional. What could possibly go wrong?

One of the projects was into spatial learning in the California Two-Spot Octopus, for which the researcher got 12 hatchling octopuses.

Unfortunately, the lab experiment went horribly wrong, killing the poor creatures before the research could be concluded.