Lunduke
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.

Source: wikimediaendowment.org

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?
  2. And what is this "Tides Foundation"?

Turns out, the benefactors of this Endowment are absolutely fascinating.

Source: Wikimedia Endowment Benefactors

You read that right.  George Soros.  Yes, that George Soros.  (Also Facebook & Google).

As for "The Tides Foundation", they run and manage 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 Lunduke.Locals.com.  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
13
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
The Unpublished Anti-Lunduke Hit-Piece

A Tech Journalist interviewed me for a hit-piece article. But the questions made them look bad, and they shelved the story. So I'm publishing their hit piece for them.

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:18:15
October 18, 2025
Rust Changes from "Master" to "Main"

Two weeks ago, The Lunduke Journal pointed out how many Leftist Open Source organizations (Rust, NixOS, Linux Kernel, etc.) still used the "Master" branch naming (against their "inclusive naming" rules). Yesterday, Rust changed to "Main".

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:05:11
October 17, 2025
GNOME Foundation Discusses Refusing Funds from Framework Computer

Framework Computer is offering monthly financial support to the GNOME Foundation. Framework also supports Omarchy Linux & Hyprland, which GNOME activists call "Fascist", so GNOME may refuse those funds.

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:09:00
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:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4619051/lunduke-journal-link-central-tm

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4898317/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?
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4619051/lunduke-journal-link-central-tm

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4898317/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 Lunduke.Locals.com 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

I need to vent and i figure you all can have a good laugh at my expense...
I've got this HP Vectra 486/33VL I've been working on. On my bench, I got everything working but the CDROM. So I decided to put everything back together. It looked good but the rear panel was loose which I knew I need to deal with.
That's when I started having issues...
The computer was no longer talking to the Sound Blaster 16. I tried everything. I spent hours troubleshooting. Was pulling parts in and out and the whole time, the rear of the case was getting looser and looser. I knew I needed to repair the clips on it, but what's the point if I can't get the stupid computer working?
I was inspecting traces and going over every inch with a microscope. I was checking voltage rails and pinouts.
After over 3 hours and attempting a fresh install of DOS, which was a pain itself since I couldn't get the CDROM or Floppy drive working, I got seriously frustrated with the back panel and just removed it.
That's when I realized ...

1 hour ago

Training up rural Americans for IT jobs. An opportunity for those who can handle it. Turnover is 30-40%.

These Jobs Often Go Overseas. One Company Is Bringing Them to Rural America.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/these-jobs-often-go-overseas-one-company-is-bringing-them-to-rural-america/ar-AA1OLa9b

16 hours ago

Are you sure this is AI??

October 15, 2025
post photo preview
The Unpublished Anti-Lunduke Hit-Piece
A Tech Journalist interviewed me for a hit-piece article. But the questions made them look bad, and they shelved the story. So I'm publishing their hit-piece for them.

Back in September, shortly after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I was contacted by a Tech Journalist writing for FossForce.com (a smaller, Open Source focused publication) who was working on an article around Open Source, Antifa, and the Lunduke Journal’s coverage of those topics.

This particular outlet had, several months prior, run an “anti-Lunduke” hit piece without first reaching out for comment — which resulted in their most popular article (at least on social media) in quite some time.

With that in mind, it seemed reasonable that they’d want to repeat that success with another “anti-Lunduke” story.

This time they were doing the responsible thing. They reached out to the subject of the hit-piece article with questions. I like encouraging Tech Journalists when they do actual journalism, so I answered each and every query with easy-to-quote responses.

But, it would appear that the answers they received were not conducive to creating the hit-piece they were hoping for — my guess is they realized their questions made them look like the villain in the story. The villain they, clearly, hoped to portray me as.

They opted to not publish the piece.

So I’m publishing their hit-piece for them.

Below is every question — and every answer (with no edits) — which I was asked, on September 19th, by a Tech Journalist by the name of Christine Hall, writing for FossForce.

Fair warning: This is very, very politically charged.

Enjoy.


September 19th

Hall:

The last time I mentioned you in an article, you castigated me for not reaching out to you beforehand. Well, I’m reaching out now. We’ll see what comes of this.

You do recognize that the vast majority of organizations using the term antifa as a descriptor are not in the least bit terrorist and pose no threat to society -- and indeed, the only threats they might pose to fascist groups are not physical or life-harming?

Lunduke:

Hello Christine! Nice to hear from you!

Many, if not most, of those proclaiming support for Antifa (within Open Source) have also made statements encouraging or supporting violence and discrimination.

Regardless of that fact -- which I have documented extensively in Lunduke Journal coverage -- when violent acts are committed (such as murder, riots, and lynchings) in the name of “Antifa”, to turn around and immediately declare yourself to be “Antifa” is a clear declaration of support of that violence.

Hall:

And why did you feel it necessary to call out Danielle Foré’s [the founder of the elementary OS Linux Distribution] trans status in such an ugly manner?

Lunduke:

There is a noteworthy overlap between “Trans activism” and support for political violence -- including in the recent murder of Charlie Kirk (the murderer’s boyfriend was “Trans”).

In the case of Daniel Fore, he, a leader of an Open Source project, regularly calls for discrimination (and violence) against people he disagrees with -- often in conjunction with his self-declaration as “Trans”.

Thus, his declaration of being “Trans” becomes a part of the overall story.

It is worth noting here that The Lunduke Journal has never -- and would never -- call for discrimination or violence against someone because of how they identify or who they may (or may not) vote for.

This is in stark contrast those, such as Mr. Fore, who consider themselves “Trans” or “Antifa” -- who actively advocate for both discrimination and violence.

Hall:

Mentioning a person’s trans status in ways that are pertinent to your argument necessates rudeness such as calling her a “dude who likes to wear dresses”?

Lunduke:

Dan Fore is, in fact, a dude who likes to wear dresses.

The only reason to view that as a negative is if you view dudes wearing dresses as a negative.

Hall:

I’ll quote you on that, which I’m pretty sure won’t bother you in the least.

Lunduke:

Absolutely! Quote anything I say here. In fact, I suggest quoting absolutely everything I’ve written to you here, today.

Hall:

You also understand, don’t you, that voicing disagreement with an assessment made by POTUS is not only legal but a healthy part of the national dialog.

Lunduke:

Absolutely! Did I say somewhere that it was illegal to disagree with a politician? It seems unlikely that I have ever said that.

Hall:

Also, how would you reply to this:

There have been very few murders linked to individuals associated with Antifa, some incidents of rioting attributed to Antifa supporters, and no credible evidence of lynchings conducted in the name of Antifa. Compared to far-right groups, violence attributed to Antifa is much less frequent and lethal, with only one suspected kill—Aaron Danielson in Portland, by an anti-fascist activist—officially confirmed in recent U.S. history.

Lunduke:

Murder is bad. I am opposed to all murder.

In the context of these discussions, bearing in mind the Kirk murder is important (as many statements were made in response to it). The murderer of Kirk appears to have been pro-Trans and pro-Antifa (based on all available information).

Hall:

Is there any evidence that the suspect was part of an antifa group? I haven’t seen any.

Lunduke:

I have seen some reporting to this effect (including statements from family and messages he wrote).

But, far more important to this story, is the response to the murder among Antifa supporters (including those within Open Source). A large portion of Antifa supporters have celebrated the murder as justified because it killed someone they considered to be a “fascist”.

Hall:

Also, no group should be held responsible for what some deranged person who identifies with the group has done.

Lunduke:

I agree that a broader group should not be held responsible for the actions of a small number of individuals.

However, and this is critically important, it is entirely appropriate to hold people responsible for their own statements and actions.

With that in mind: The overall messaging of Antifa (and Antifa supporters) tends heavily towards violence. Punching, killing, molotov cocktails, etc. are all common messaging used by Antifa (including by those I quote within the Open Source world -- many of whom have advocated violence against myself).

Advocating for violence, then celebrating when violence is committed, are not good things.

Yet we see a great deal of that among Open Source supporters of Antifa.

Read full Article
October 13, 2025
Sale ends in a few hours, Lifetime Subs set up.

Holy moly, you guys are amazing.

A few days ago I published a “50% off” sale for Lunduke Journal subscriptions… and all of you showed up. In a big way.

To everyone who grabbed a Lifetime Subscription over the last few days: All of you are set to full Lifetime access. You should have a confirmation email in your inbox. If not, email me and I’ll make sure you’re setup properly.

That “50% off” sale ends tonight at midnight. So you have a few hours to snag a discounted subscription, if you haven’t already.

A huge thank you to everyone who supports this work. Couldn’t do it without you.

-Lunduke

Read full Article
October 12, 2025
50% Off Lunduke Journal Extended Through Monday (Oct 13th)

Just a quick heads up:

The “50% off every kind of Subscription to The Lunduke Journal” sale has been extended through Monday (October 13th).

So. You know. Grab one at 50% off between now and end of the day on Monday.

To all of you amazing nerds who have picked up a Lifetime Subscription already this weekend: You are awesome. You’ll be receiving a confirmation email, with all of the Lifetime Subscription details, by tomorrow (if you haven’t already).

Oh, and remember how we hit 11 Million views last month? Yeah. We’re well on our way to blowing past those numbers in October.

Wild.

See you all on Monday!

-Lunduke

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