About ten years ago, Jimmy Wales said about Wikipedia (time code 4:35):

“So, we’re doing around 1.4 billion page views monthly. So, it’s really gotten to be a huge thing. And everything is managed by the volunteers and the total monthly cost for our bandwidth is about 5,000 dollars, and that’s essentially our main cost. We could actually do without the employee ... We actually hired Brion [Vibber] because he was working part-time for two years and full-time at Wikipedia so we actually hired him so he could get a life and go to the movies sometimes.”

In 2008, when Wikipedia was already the world's number 8 website, the Wikimedia Foundation survived on $5 million (vs. $82 million last year). So, yes, you can have a top-ten website – written entirely by unpaid volunteers – for a fraction of the current cost.

Wikimedia have posted an update on the Wikimedia mailing list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pi...

"This year, we are happy to report we’ve reached our goal of US$25 million in record time. This is a testament to the importance of Wikimedia and how much support we have from people all over the world. Given this momentum, we believe that it would be wise and worthwhile to continue to fundraise more in the month of December, for the following reasons: [...]

Here is what we will do: We intend to continue with the banners for a few more days. We would then take them down over the Christmas holiday, before making an end-of-year push in the final couple days of the year. (Many people choose to give at the very end of the year, and they are expecting to hear from us as usual -- so it is an opportunity to give people who plan to give the easiest means to participate)."

(Follow link for full text of the WMF statement, including their spending rationale.)

Actually, the first stage is costed at 2.5 million, of which the Knight Foundation is only covering $250,000. The rest is coming out of donations. The other three stages will each cost more than the first.

From this write-up, linked in the article (the link is on the word "costed"):

"Page 10 of this text specifically says that the cost of the first stage of "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia" is $2.5 million, and that the grant is for 1 year starting in September 2015. Page 2 says that the whole project is in 4 stages, each lasting approximately 18 months = 6 years. This grant of $250,000 therefore only covers 10% of the cost, of the first stage, of the total project."

Well said. It's gotten to the point where whenever Wales starts badmouthing people and calling something "utter fucking bullshit" or a "total lie" (as he did in this case), you have to suspect that something very much resembling the exact opposite of what he says is actually true. At the same time, he claimed in those discussions he was "a much stronger advocate of transparency than James [Heilman]", the community representative he and the others had thrown off the Wikimedia board.

For detailed background, see coverage in the Wikipedia Signpost, Wikipedia's community newspaper:

Geshuri steps down from board

Media coverage of the Arnnon Geshuri no-confidence vote

Also check the previous two weeks' News & Notes for how the no-confidence vote came about.

Isn't that just a bit of regurgitated propaganda, assuming facts not in evidence (i.e. that liberal arts majors, dogs and Republicans would follow the rules)?

Here is what happens in real life:

manipulation in the service of commercial agendas,

hoaxes,

malice, and

blackmail,

along with "skewed information, unattributed material, and potential copyright violations".

Wikipedia throws such people out today, and they're back tomorrow, with a new pseudonymous sockpuppet account.

Wikipedia lists over 70,000 blocked sockpuppeteers, and that list does not include some of the most serious cases, where individuals have used literally hundreds of sockpuppet accounts. (For reference, the English Wikipedia has around 3,000 steady contributors making at least three or four content edits a day.)

Wikipedia sure needs a competitor, though to me this isn't a good reason. It's simply because monopolies in information transmission are a bad thing, and because Wikipedia is wide open to anonymous manipulation. For all its talk about transparency, Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia where you are not told (and are not supposed to ask or find out) who's written the thing. There are often good reasons for this (some of the harassment editors experience is vile – rape threats, death threats), but the one thing it is not is "transparent".