And Wikipedia keeps a complete version history of every edit made to every page, doesn't it? I just think about how large a single git repo can get and imagine that at scale.

Also, slightly tangential, but the little blurb at the top of that essay is my favorite kind of Wikipedia-y snark:

> "WP:CANCER" redirects here. For editors who improve Wikipedia's articles about actual physical cancer, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Hematology-oncology task force.

Yes. It does get good compression ratio though as different versions are similar (although i dont know if wikipedia still does recompression). Storage by itself is not a particularly expensive part of the app.

You can actually download the whole thing if you want.

The images are a much bigger issue than the text, I would fancy.

Let's not say "hosting costs". Actual hosting costs are less than $3 million a year:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/26/Wikim...

$100 million or so are now spent on salaries.

I think an earlier version of the essay focused much more on hosting.

It should be noted that when you run your own data center that means that money that would have gone to AWS as a "hosting cost" now gets spread around to other sections. Its cheaper overall but shows up in different sections.

There are things i disagree with about how wmf spends its money, but just saying it spends too much money without breaking it down is meaningless. As an absolute number it is way lower than comparable websites. Maybe its spent on wrong things, but to be convincing you need to actual talk about how its wrong. Saying zOMG WMF pays about 1% of what equivalent companies pay in salaries,is not convincing that they are overspending.

Well, I definitely thought that the $600+K severance for Katherine Maher was too much. It's 150% of her salary. Same for Janeen Uzzell pockeding $300+K in severance after only having been there for two years and a bit.

Plus the now-cancelled Knowledge Equity Fund disaster seems to have been their brainchild. I know, nobody is perfect, cock-ups happen everywhere, etc. But the conduct and transparency around money just has never been that stellar at Wikimedia. (The Endowment has made it worse.)

The other aspect is that Wikimedia has always made it sound like they needed money to keep Wikipedia up and running, while having eight-figure surpluses year after year and continually growing their headcount. At least that has now somewhat improved for the moment, but it took a revolt by Wikipedians to make it so:

https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/wikipedia-wikimedia-fou...

Left to their own devices, the Wikimedia Foundation would just have continued what they were doing all along.

Its not like i disagree with any of this (while tbh, i dont really know how severance works for execs and what is appropriate, so no opinion on that). I just find people gesturing at the total sum of all the money and saying its too much is really uncompelling. The argument needs to be more nuanced than that to be compelling.

In my personal opinion, the real waste at wmf is being penny wise and pound foolish (or to give the appearence of being penny wise). That and the rotating door of poor upper management has everyone working in circles and at cross purposes from each other. Its an organization that doesn't know what its trying to achieve so doesn't achieve it. Many of its problems could probably be solved by spending more money doing less things but doing them better.