akolbe

You can find the Wikimedia expenses breakdown from the 2024/2025 Auditors' Report here:

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wiki...

Yes, that is a good example. I used to be cynical about these uses of money until I met a 70-year-old volunteer who regularly attends international cycling championships to take pictures of the cyclists. She is totally devoted to documenting the sport and is not by any stretch of the imagination getting rich doing that or living in luxury. So I've changed my mind: her being able to do that is a good thing for her, for Wikipedia and for the sportspeople involved in these championships. YMMV.

Well, Wikimedia does have an Endowment, currently valued at $169 million. See Form 990:

https://wikimediaendowment.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/20...

This is in addition to assets of around $300 million held by the Wikimedia Foundation. Form 990:

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundat...

For expenses breakdown see the most recent audited accounts:

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wiki...

One good thing is that unlike AI, Wikipedia at least allows you to see how an article grew. Yes, for the most part you only see pseudonyms in the edit history, but they represent individual editors with discernible interests and biases, whereas an AI-based 'pedia is a black box.

You can argue with Wikipedians; with an AI-'pedia, not so much.

Hasidic teaching stories are charming. Here is one:

When Rabbi Zusha was on his deathbed, his students found him in great distress. They tried to comfort him by telling him that he was almost as wise as Moses, so he was sure to be judged positively in Heaven. He replied, "When I pass from this world and appear before the Heavenly Tribunal, they won't ask me, 'Zusha, why weren't you as wise as Moses?' They will ask me, 'Zusha, why weren't you Zusha?'"

Absolutely. Same with the favelas – locals are safer than strangers.

Incidentally, the UK government website contains specific warnings about using GPS navigation in Brazil:

---------

The security situation in many favelas is unpredictable. Visiting a favela can be dangerous. Avoid all favelas, including favela tours marketed to tourists and any accommodation, restaurants or bars advertised as being within a favela.

You should:

– make sure the suggested route does not take you into a favela if you’re using GPS navigation

– avoid entering unpaved, cobbled or narrow streets which may lead into a favela - tourists have been shot after accidentally entering favelas

If you’re unsure about a location, check with your hotel or the local authorities.

---------

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/brazil/safety-and-s...

Mm. Google Maps will sometimes confidently suggest roads which without that recommendation would have seemed quite unsuitable. So people put their instincts aside and think Google must know better ... only to regret it later.

It would be helpful if Google could add a few qualifiers like "Note that this is a very steep and mostly single-lane unpaved road" or "This road leads through an unsafe neighbourhood", followed by "An alternative route would be ..."

Maybe in a few years' time.

Nice. I think the key thing here is, or was, the mix: the two activities complementing each other.

Also, perhaps, the knowledge that both were temporary and meant to lead to other, or better, things.