Comedy • Gaming • News • Science & Tech
The Wiki Piggy Bank
Wikimedia grows rich as Wikipedia donations are used for political causes
August 20, 2023
post photo preview

Over the last two decades, Wikipedia has become one of the most visited -- and most referenced --websites on Earth.

And nearly every one of us is familiar with Wikipedia's regular requests for donations, often including urgent-sounding text along the lines of "protect Wikipedia's independence" and "without reader contributions, we couldn’t run Wikipedia."

Sounds pretty dire, right?  Wikipedia must be in pretty rough shape!  They need those donations right away!  If I don't donate, they might need to shut down!  Surely they run a pretty tight ship, with some pretty lean and mean operations... right?  And surely -- surely -- the funds they have are being handled in a transparent way!

You know what?

Just for kicks, let's take a look at the finances of Wikipedia -- using all publicly available sources of documentation (including IRS filings, annual reports, and audits) -- and see what the real financial state of Wikipedia is like.

Because this is The Lunduke Journal.  And that's what we do.

Spoiler: It's all really, really weird.  And highly sketchy.  Also a ton of money donated for Wikipedia... isn't used to run Wikipedia.

The Wikimedia Foundation

The financial core of Wikipedia is the Wikimedia Foundation.  The Foundation, itself, is responsible for running the actual Wikipedia servers -- and that is where everything else branches out from.

Let's start with the most basic piece of information we need:

How much money does The Wikimedia Foundation receive, in donations, every year -- from people who believe they are directly funding the Wikipedia servers?

According to the most recent IRS filings (2021)... roughly $164 Million USD for the year.

Public Donations to Wikimedia, per year.  Source: 990.

Year-on-year, Wikimedia is seeing significant growth -- with each year recording record donations.  Up an additional $9 Million between 2020 and 2021 alone.

While those numbers seem large, at first glance, they really only tell a small part of the story.

What if -- for example -- Wikipedia needs even more than $164 Million, every single year, to operate?  What are the various expenses of Wikipedia?

Luckily, we have a high level breakout of expenses in the yearly Wikimedia Foundation audit.

Turns out, the costs associated with the server hosting of Wikipedia for 2021 was just shy of $2.4 Million.

But server hosting costs are only part of the equation, right?  There's also other wages, travel, and all manner of expenses.  So let's add it all up.

Revenue and Expenses.  Source: 2021 Audit.  Note: The numbers shown for 2022 are not final and are likely to be wildly different than the numbers published in the official 2022 audit.

After all is said and done -- and all revenue and expenses are taken into consideration -- The Wikimedia Foundation received over $50 Million dollars more than they spent in 2021.

They made $50+ million in profit.

Doesn't sound like an organization that is hurting for funding... does it?

Let's take a look back over the last few years (starting in 2015) and chart out the yearly financials of Wikimedia.  It shows some absolutely astonishing growth in terms of total assets (such as money in the bank).

Sources: Yearly 990's and Public Wikimedia Audits

A few items worth noting:

  • Server Hosting related costs for all Wikipedia related sites was $2 Million in 2015.  It has remained mostly flat (compared to income and other costs) only raising to $2.4 Million as of 2021.
  • As of 2021, Wikimedia has over $231 Million in assets.  And growing... rapidly.  Just look at that blue line!
  • Assets and profit are growing, despite a massive increase in Salaries and Wages: from $26 Million in 2015... to $67.8 Million in 2021.

So.  Let's answer a burning question:

Q: Does Wikipedia desperately need your donations in order to continue operating?

A: No.  Not by a long-shot.  If donations dropped significantly, there would be no hit to Wikipedia operations.  Certainly not for quite some time.

When Wikipedia tells you they need your $5 donation to keep running?  They are lying to you.

In fact... this is just the tip of the iceberg.

There are also two unique financial entities, related to Wikimedia, that are... extremely strange: The Wikimedia Endowment and The Knowledge Equity Fund.

Let's take a look at those.

The Wikimedia Endowment

Back in 2016, The Wikimedia Foundation establed "The Wikimedia Endowment" -- with a goal of stockpiling $100 Million dollars worth of funding within the endowment.

So what is the stated goal of The Wikimedia Endowment? 

"The Wikimedia Endowment is our enduring commitment to a world of freely shared knowledge, now and in perpetuity."

Ok.  Vague.  But that tends to be the way with these sorts of foundations.

What sort of work actually gets funded by this Endowment?  According to their website... they only give a list of "select projects".  Not a complete list.  And we also don't have any details of how much this Endowment spends on any given project.


Not specific.  Not transparent.  No amounts given.  Or dates.  Or... much of anything.

But we do know that the Endowment has met its $100 Million funding goal (and still growing) as of 2021:

"as of December 31, 2021, the Endowment held $105.4 million ($99.33 million in an investment account and $6.07 million in cash), with an additional $8 million raised in December 2021 due to be transferred to the Endowment in January 2022."

Now... here's where The Wikimedia Endowment starts to get... weird.

From the time the Endowment was created, in 2016, to 2021... The Wikimedia Foundation deposited $5 Million dollars (of Wikipedia donations) into the Endowment.  Totalling $30 Million according to the most recent Wikimedia Foundation Audit.

Source: 2021 Audit

But... wait.  Wait.  Wait.

Two big questions crop up from that paragraph from the 2021 audit:

  1. If Wikimedia Foundation only contributed $30 Million (from user donations) to the Endowment... who contributed the rest of the money?  A company?  Rich benefactor?  (No... it's not listed.)
  2. And what is this "Tides Foundation"?

Turns out "The Tides Foundation" runs and manages the entire Wikimedia Endowment.  All $100+ Million of it.

Here is a very intereting bit, from Wikimedia:

"The funds may be transferred from Tides either to the Wikimedia Foundation or to other charitable organisations selected by the Wikimedia Foundation to further the Wikimedia mission."

Go ahead.  Read that sentence again.

That Wikimedia Endowment money?  That 100 Million bucks?  Could go to "other charitable organisations".  What are those?  Who knows!  There's close to zero transparency about it.

Whoever the heck "Tides" is... they have an awful lot of power here when it comes to this "Wikimedia Endowment" money.  Let's go further.

What, exactly, is Tides?

This is what Wikipedia says about Tides (it seemed an approriate place to reference):

"Tides Foundation is an American public charity and fiscal sponsor working to advance progressive causes and policy initiatives"

Yep.  The Tides Foundation is a specifically political organization... for funding, organizating, and pushing specific political agendas.

Editorial Note: Here at The Lunduke Journal of Technology, we try our best to stay away from politics.  As such, we will not be discussing some of the many, and varied, political stances of The Tides Foundation in any detail here.  But, since Tides (and, as we will see, Wikimedia) are making pointed political statements and investments... The Lunduke Journal will be including those and letting you, the reader, make up your own mind about any political ramifications.

Is it strange that Wikipedia donations are being sent, by the Millions, to be handled by a political orgainzation?  Yes.  That is, most definitely, strange.  Considering Wikipedia has repeatedly stated the importantce of neutrality... incredibly so.

But it gets... even weirder.

Neither Wikimedia nor The Tides Foundation publish details about how those funds are being used.  It appears to be a secret.  But, considering what The Tides Foundation does, it is something political.  And only on one side of the political spectrum.  Not neutral, like Wikipedia says they must be.

And the ties between Tides and Wikimedia go way, way beyond just managing a hundred million dollars...

In 2019, The Wikimedia Foundation hired a new General Council.  Where did that person work in her previous job?  You guessed it.  The Tides Foundation.  Seriously.

What do we know?

  • The Tides Foundation manages and runs all $100+ Million of the Wikimedia Endowment.
  • Donations to Wikipedia paid for roughly $30 Million of that Endowment (with the remainder coming from unknown sources).
  • The Tides Foundation exclusively does political work for one part of the political spectrum.
  • The connections between Wikimedia and Tides run deep.
  • Neither Tides, nor Wikimedia, have published how that money is being used.

Which brings us to yet another area where Wikimedia is investing Wikipedia donations... in ways that are extremely political.

Once again: The Lunduke Journal of Technology is not going to tell anyone what they should think about any particular political views.  The official stance of The Lunduke Journal is that extreme politics -- of any kind -- tend to not be a positive force in the running of software and other computing projects.

Knowledge Equity Fund

Let's talk about one more way that Wikipedia donations are spent.  This concerns a much smaller amount of funds than we previously talked about with the Endowment... but the stated goals around it warrant documenting.

According to Wikimedia:

The "Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund" is a US $4.5 million fund created by the Wikimedia Foundation in 2020, to provide grants to external organizations that support knowledge equity by addressing the racial inequities preventing access and participation in free knowledge.

Here are some quotes, from the same Wikimedia page, to provide clarity around their goals:

"The Wikimedia Foundation defines racial equity as shifting away from US and Eurocentricity, White-male-imperialist-patriarchal supremacy, superiority, power and privilege"


"Racial equity aims to promote ... non-White, non-US ... communities"

Whatever your thoughts around any of those statements, it should be noted that Wikimedia is spending $4.5 Million dollars worth of Wikipedia donations to further those goals.  Money that is not being spent on running Wikipedia.

In fact... it is worth noting that the dollar figure being allocated towards this "Knowledge Equity Fund" is twice the size of the yearly Server Hosting costs for all of Wikipedia.

What does all this mean?

Regardless of what any of us think about the specific political spending of Wikimedia, one thing is crystal clear:

A significant portion of donations -- solicited for the stated purpose of the running of Wikipedia -- are being spent furthing political goals.  Not on running Wikipedia.  All while Wikipedia is claiming to be barely surviving.

And Wikimedia is getting rich in the process.

Like this type of 100% independent Tech reporting?  Be sure to subscribe to  Even a free account is a good idea.

Here are a few other articles you might also find interesting:

community logo
Join the Lunduke Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
What else you may like…
November 16, 2023
openSUSE is worth saving. And I think it's possible.

openSUSE Linux has a long, rich history -- coupled with a uniquely valuable feature-set.

Unfortunately, serious mismanagement, a lack of vision, almost zero marketing, and (worst of all) a policy of deliberate alienation of half the population... has put openSUSE on a bad road.

Here I cover what, specifically, is going wrong with openSUSE... and how I believe it could be not only fixed, but set on a path towards massive success.

November 08, 2023
When Apple built MacOS... for Solaris and HP-UX. In 1994.

Back in 1994, Apple released the Macintosh Application Environment for UNIX. And it was kind of amazing.

This is the Audio/Video version of the following article:

November 01, 2023
Ranting about Apple hardware... and glue - Lunduke's Big Tech Show - November 1st, 2023

It needs to be done. Because it's a day that ends in Y.

November 22, 2023
The futility of Ad-Blockers

Ads are filling the entirety of the Web -- websites, podcasts, YouTube videos, etc. -- at an increasing rate. Prices for those ad placements are plummeting. Consumers are desperate to use ad-blockers to make the web palatable. Google (and others) are desperate to break and block ad-blockers. All of which results in... more ads and lower pay for creators.

It's a fascinatingly annoying cycle. And there's only one viable way out of it.

Looking for the Podcast RSS feed or other links? Check here:

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:

The futility of Ad-Blockers
November 21, 2023
openSUSE says "No Lunduke allowed!"

Those in power with openSUSE make it clear they will not allow me anywhere near anything related to the openSUSE project. Ever. For any reason.

Well, that settles that, then! Guess I won't be contributing to openSUSE! 🤣

Looking for the Podcast RSS feed or other links?

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:

openSUSE says "No Lunduke allowed!"
September 13, 2023
"Andreas Kling creator of Serenity OS & Ladybird Web Browser" - Lunduke’s Big Tech Show - September 13th, 2023 - Ep 044

This episode is free for all to enjoy and share.

Be sure to subscribe here at to get all shows & articles (including interviews with other amazing nerds).

"Andreas Kling creator of Serenity OS & Ladybird Web Browser" - Lunduke’s Big Tech Show - September 13th, 2023 - Ep 044
post photo preview

I remember what it was like...

post photo preview

Here's a fun one for @JohnBlood

Atari just put out an ad in the style of their old 1970's magazine ads. It's amazing:

post photo preview
post photo preview
SUSE's ex-CEO ousted after greenlighting "risky deals"
New details uncovered about the abrupt departure of the Linux company's CEO earlier this year.

On March 22nd of this year, the CEO of SUSE (Melissa di Donato) was unexpectedly announced to no longer be working for the Linux company -- effective that very day.

At the time, it seemed likely (but unconfirmed) that di Donato was fired from her position simply based on her less than stellar performance in the role.

  • She oversaw the IPO of SUSE on the German Stock Exchange, which had results which were "not great" at first.  Then it got worse.
  • As time went on, di Donato oversaw SUSE as it lost close to half of the company's valuation (eventually leading the majority shareholders to seek a de-listing of the company).
  • The CEO was so desperate for positive press, that SUSE paid multiple companies to give her fake awards.  Seriously.  That actually happened.

In the days following di Donato's ousting, confidential sources suggested to The Lunduke Journal that there was more to the story -- that there were significant, non-public reasons for her "immediate departure".  More than simply poor performance and cringe-worthy, self-awards.

Thanks to new reporting from Reuters, we might be gaining new insight into what those reasons might be.

Apparently, under di Donato, the SUSE Board felt it was necessary to create a new "Deal Desk" to research and authorize any sizable corporate deal -- to ensure that it was not a "high risk" deal for SUSE.  Even going so far as to issue a warning, to shareholders, about such potentially risky existing deals.

When a corporate Board establishes a new system to review "risky" deals made under specific leadership... that is a pretty strong indicator that "risky" deals were being made.

Where there's smoke... there's fire.

From the Reuters article:

"SUSE may enter into high-risk or commercially inappropriate deals if it does not exercise effective control over the Sales organization," it said in the report. The company noted that "'Commercial governance' is a newly identified risk this year" and a heatmap in the report ranked the risk as "possible" and its impact on the business as "high".

A warning to shareholders -- along with assurances the the company would be protected from future risky deals by the new "Deals Desk" -- was issued on January 19th.  The SUSE CEO was ousted, without notice, on March 22nd.

So what, exactly, happened in the 63 days between those two events?

It turns out... big, risky deals.  And those new deals did not get reviewed by that "Deal Desk".

"According to four documents reviewed by Reuters and two of the people with knowledge of the situation, Di Donato greenlighted the commercial terms of a roughly $1.4 million sale to South African utility Eskom in late January, bypassing the deal desk's scrutiny in order to speed the process, less than two weeks after SUSE told investors the desk would help to improve controls."

Reuters obtained internal SUSE emails that appear to corroborate this:

"On January 30,  after commercial terms of the Eskom deal had been agreed, a senior SUSE executive said in an email to other company officials that the terms had not been submitted to the deal desk.


In late February, an executive told colleagues in an email that the sale had not been scrutinized by the deal desk."

Then, a few weeks later, di Donato was -- without warning -- no longer the CEO of SUSE.  The departure was so abrupt and unplanned... that SUSE was left without a CEO over a month and a half.

At this point, things appear to be in damage control mode for SUSE -- with shareholders voting in November to de-list the company from the stock exchange and take SUSE private.  SUSE no longer being a publicly traded company will significantly reduce the requirements on what sort of information gets reported publicly... including, potentially, about specific, risky deals.

As for Melissa di Donato, she appears to have lawyered up.  When Reuters reached out to di Donato for comment... those comments were handled entirely by her attorneys.

What all of this means for the future of the world's longest running Linux company remains to be seen.

The Lunduke Journal has reached out to sources at SUSE for confirmation regarding some details of this report.

Read full Article
November 29, 2023
post photo preview
Wikimedia profit, assets, and executive wages explode in 2023
(And yet Wikipedia claims to desperately need your donations.)

The Wikimedia Foundation (the organization which runs and controls Wikipedia) has just published their annual financial report for the current year -- and they made a mountain of money.

Revenue is up.  Total assets are up.  Everything, with Wikimedia, is up.  Way, way up.

Including salaries for their executives.  In an extreme way.

At this point, they are Scrooge McDuck swimming through the money in their vault.

Yet, if you go to right now, you will be told -- with a great deal of urgency and alarm -- that "it will soon be too late to help us" and that they desperately need you to "please give".

This is one of the least dire-sounding plea for donations in quite some time.

Let's take a quick tour of Wikimedia's current financials to see exactly how rich they are... and how they truly are using those donations.  (And exactly how rich their executives are growing.)

See also: "The Wiki Piggy Bank -- Wikimedia grows rich as Wikipedia donations are used for political causes"

The Money Vault

So, how much money does Wikimedia have, on hand, as of the current filings in 2023?  A lot.  A whole heck of a lot.  Over a quarter of a Billion dollars.

And that's just at first glance.

The deeper you dig, the more money you find.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
November 27, 2023
post photo preview
openSUSE ditches recognizable, beloved logo
Because everything else with their Linux distro is going down the toilet... so why not?

Note: This article is not a joke.  It is not satire.  It is a very real -- and very stupid -- thing that is happening right now.  And, while it may only impact a small portion of the Linux-using world, it is simply too ridiculous to not talk about.

I've talked about the problems with openSUSE a few times before.  It is an historically significant piece of the Linux world... one which I used to sit on the Board of.  I have a deep fondness for openSUSE, despite the many problems, and gross mismanagement, it currently faces.

Yet, despite all of the problems that plague openSUSE -- ranging from deliberate alienation of 50% of their users... to a confusing, ever-changing array of download options --  there has remained one aspect of this Linux distribution that has been rock solid.

The logo.

It may be a small thing... but it's important.

The openSUSE chameleon is one of the most recognizable and beloved logos and mascots in the Linux world (perhaps only second to Tux the Penguin, himself).

The current, longtime openSUSE logo and mascot.

I used to go to Linux conferences with boxes full of hundreds of stuffed openSUSE chameleon plushies... people clammored for them.  I would stand on stage and toss them out to people, often literally jumping up and down for them.  Those boxes would be empty within moments.  That logo / mascot was instantly recognizable, on sight.

And, just as importantly, it made people smile.

So if there's one thing that openSUSE would not possibly think about changing... it's that logo.  Right?

And, yet, that is exactly what openSUSE has decided to do.  To take what is one of the only good pieces of branding they have... and throw it into the garbage.

Right now, the openSUSE membership is voting one which proposed logo to replace it with.  Here's a sampling.

Seriously.  One of these might be the new openSUSE logo.

In all honesty... I can't decide which of those logos I hate the most.  And what, exactly, is that weird aligator on the right doing to the poor... is that an iOS app icon?  You know what.  I don't even want to know.

Which abomination will the openSUSE members choose to replace their existing, recognizable, beloved logo?  It will be interesting to see, when voting finishes.

"Interesting" in the same way that "sneezing out a giant booger onto your computer screen and then trying wipe it up with your sleeve only to realize that you now have a pretty big booger on your sleeve" is... "interesting".

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals