Poetry Forum

Full Version: can it be true?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
and if so why.
Quote:WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange is crying poor.

He says it has cost $620,000 a week to keep the organisation going since it began publishing its vast trove of leaked diplomatic cables.

source

this isn't an assange knocking thread so no need to mention him per say.
i'm really curious as to how a site that basically gives stuff to news papers to publish and mirror sites along with the fact that they have a fairly small wage bill could need that much cash in order to function.

a quick bit of maths would make that $32,240,000 per annum.
a figure that truly astounds me. not for wikileaks but for almost any sight.
how much to run TPB for a year. 2 billion?

yeah but the post isn't about that. i'm asking if a site any site needs 32 million dollars a year to function properly.
i'm not asking how anyone can generate such an amount. Angry

thethingy

(01-12-2011, 06:30 PM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]yeah but the post isn't about that. i'm asking if a site any site needs 32 million dollars a year to function properly.
i'm not asking how anyone can generate such an amount. Angry

No way, like seriously no way on this earth could it ever be that much unless they [wiki staff] are creaming of all the donations for themselves, 32 million is a ridiculous sum of cash, I think the more we see and hear of the wiki people they less credible and dishonest they appear..............
i think we only hear from lasagna,not from the rest

mrmod


(01-12-2011, 09:16 PM)srijantje Wrote: [ -> ]i think we only hear from lasagna,not from the rest

(01-12-2011, 03:55 PM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]this isn't an assange knocking thread
Wink

Personally I don't know what to say. I don't think the server cost would be that monumental, so I doubt it's them. What else would they spend their money on?

Maybe they have to pay for lawyers and accoutants Undecided. I can't see why he would lie so blatantly as surely it wouldn't be too hard to figure out.
from the source i can only assume costs spiralled since they first published the cables.
if that is how much a sight needs then it must surely mean that's how much a site spends, (and maybe keeps a little in reserve for other costs) a question that arises has to be; how much has the site been pending this last year?
i suppose the real question is how much do the top site collect each year (not just wiki) from the donations buttons and other revenue generators.

i do know some wikis have headers requesting donates.

and i have donated a small amounts to wiki commons and internet archive(great sites that i believe do great work)
but how much do they generate. i definitely don't begrudge the donate button; a feature which we can all refuse to use should we wish to do so. is there any kid of regulation that says sites should post how much the make from donations, or is it all kept secret?

tpb i have to say has never had any of my cash though it has and always will have my support. and again the team there deserve to whatever they make. i may donate a small amount in the future but i honestly doubt it (and i don't know why) i have nothing but admiration fro the workers who toil behind the scenes for free and keep it and other sights running.

I think all non-profit organizations have to keep books which they are legally obliged to declare (I may be mistaken).

I did a quick search, and it appears that the Wikimedia foundation currently cost around $10 million to run. So wikileaks costing 32 million... I have no idea.

thethingy

(01-13-2011, 01:14 PM)addy Wrote: [ -> ]I think all non-profit organizations have to keep books which they are legally obliged to declare (I may be mistaken).

I did a quick search, and it appears that the Wikimedia foundation currently cost around $10 million to run. So wikileaks costing 32 million... I have no idea.

You know I doubt the leaker's were given anything for there troubles, the wiki [Julian's] extradition legal costs will be met by the British & Swedish tax payer, any criminal proceedings in the US or Sweden will be met by the tax payer, obviously it does cost to run a service but you can google that and pick the dearest plans [you rent bandwidth combined with servers as a package if I'm not mistaken], likely there will be nominal VPN costs in addition, doubtful that there is an actual headquarters or offices that are used for the day to day running of things as it would just be a target for a police raid so if the running costs are truly in the millions then the people of this world are making a few journalists multi millionaires with there goodwill and that I think is bad thing.

mrmod

(01-13-2011, 01:14 PM)addy Wrote: [ -> ]I did a quick search, and it appears that the Wikimedia foundation currently cost around $10 million to run.

Is that per year?
(01-14-2011, 08:19 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-13-2011, 01:14 PM)addy Wrote: [ -> ]I did a quick search, and it appears that the Wikimedia foundation currently cost around $10 million to run.

Is that per year?

Yep. A little more than $10 million per year to run all of wikipedia, wikimedia commons, wikisource, etc etc. Undecided

And even then critics are saying those numbers are padded.
(01-14-2011, 01:05 PM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]This is the server back end that the Wikipedia operation manages to keep running for their $10 million.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers
Quote:Warning: Do not rely on any information on this page being up-to-date or correct.
safe to say it's more or less in the realms of possibility. i'd love to see how many gigs they use for of storage and memory they use. i never got chance to red all the documentation. (i'll do it later)

i wonder how much to run the likes of yahoo,

mrmod

(01-14-2011, 09:03 AM)addy Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-14-2011, 08:19 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-13-2011, 01:14 PM)addy Wrote: [ -> ]I did a quick search, and it appears that the Wikimedia foundation currently cost around $10 million to run.

Is that per year?

Yep. A little more than $10 million per year to run all of wikipedia, wikimedia commons, wikisource, etc etc. Undecided

And even then critics are saying those numbers are padded.

I don't know, $30m doesn't look that extraordinary now compared to the wikimedia foundation.

But why so expensive? Surely wikileaks has less visits and hence less server pressure than the "mighty" wikipedia?

thethingy

(01-18-2011, 03:53 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know $30m doesn't look that extraordinary now compared to the wikimedia foundation.

But why so expensive? Surely wikileaks has less visits and hence less server pressure than the "mighty" wikipedia?

It does, wiki foundation appear to operate there own systems in there own buildings paying there own staff, wiki leaks are leasing servers and if you google hosting services I'd bet you wont find any services offering unlimited bandwidth in the five figure mark never mind the tens of millions..............30 million may well buy you an isp.

look: http://www.easyspace.com dedicated server with unlimited bandwidth £25 per month, massive £300 per year, they should pay me to sort there servers out Id save them £29.999.700.
the information carried by wikimedia, wikicommons, wikipedia etc, is huge. they carry huge amounts of vid, pics, and audio files.
the traffic too and from it is also huge, and i mean extremely. many sites are populated with files from wiki media/source/pedia/dictionary/music/commons etc.

the only files leaks does are a few gigs for the whole shebang, apart from the view vids they have, at a guess i'd say wiki leaks is less than a tenth the size of the real wiki site. with fewer paid workers, servers and traffic. 30 mil for any site with same logistics to me would be preposterous.

How big is the database?

Early in Wikipedia's history, in February 2003 the database was about 4 GB in size. By August 2003, this had grown to roughly 16 GB, with uploaded images and media files taking up another gigabyte or so. By April 2004, this had grown to about 57 GB, and was growing at about 1 to 1.4 GB per week, and by October 2004, it had grown to about 170 GB. This includes all languages and support tables but not images and multimedia.

As of late August 2006, database storage takes about 1.2 terabytes:

* English Wikipedia core database: 163G
* Other Florida-based core databases: 213G
* Other Korea-based core databases: 117G
* Text storage nodes: 44G, 44G, 200G, 149G, 166G, 84G, 84G

This may include free space inside database storage files, as well as a lot of indexing.

Uploaded files took up approximately 372 gigabytes as of June 2006, excluding thumbnails.

Compressed database dumps can be downloaded at http://download.wikipedia.org/.

in three and a half years it grew from 4 gigs to 1.2 terabytes:
who know what their storage size is now, five years later?