Why is Jimmy Wales net worth so low?

[resy]

Was just reading that Jimmy Wales, founder of Wiki, has a net worth of only 1M. How can this be? Thats a lot of money but for someine that founded one of the most visited sites, it isn't.
so either he is a super cool dude that really isn't in it for the money or something else. Not sure. I'd like to believe he is awesome.
Anyone that can shed some light on him/this? Interestingly  he also used to be a financial trader.

[Ferrisbueller]

He's not in it for the $$$$ afaik

[slugline]

Wikipedia costs nothing to access and has no advertising. That revenue spigot is currently closed. Whatever wealth Wales has probably has very little to do with the traffic hitting the website.

[seattlecyclone]

Most large websites are formed as for-profit corporations, and the founders get enough shares to make them extremely wealthy after the IPO. Wikipedia is structured as a not-for-profit corporation, which means Wales doesn't "own" Wikipedia and did not get to profit from its success in the same way as he would have if it were a for-profit corporation.

[Workinghard]

Maybe because he got divorced....

[skyrefuge]

Wales doesn't "own" Wikipedia and did not get to profit from its success in the same way as he would have if it were a for-profit corporation.

And given that Wikipedia is in the midst of a drive asking for donations, it's pretty clear that there would not have even been much "success" for him to profit from even if he did own it (of course if it ran ads, it would be a whole different story).

I'm kind of surprised that the OP didn't see the donation pop-up when reading Wales's entry; seems like that would have immediately made it clear that Wikipedia is not a cash-cow!

ETA: and furthermore, the part of Wales's entry that mentions his net worth contains a clickable citation that links to an article explaining all of this in great detail! Why did this thread even get created?

[seattlecyclone]

If things were different and Wikipedia grew to its current size in the form of a for-profit corporation, I would be willing to bet that the markets would value it highly enough that Wales's share would make him a wealthy man. He would perhaps be in a different league from Bill Gates or Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg, but the number of eyeballs on the site makes it valuable.

Wikipedia is philosophically opposed to advertising. They don't want to introduce any risk that people would have reason to edit pages in such a way that it would bring in more revenue for the site. I personally think they have a strong enough culture of objectivity that this is hardly a risk anymore, but the anti-ads thing is so ingrained into the culture of the site that it is unlikely to ever change. But if they did change their policy, they could probably slap a small Google ad in the bottom corner of each page that would more than pay for their operating expenses.

[gimp]

Yeah, that's the difficult part of providing anything for free online: ads tend to make you less objective. You need to chase quality first, getting the readers, and then finding a way to sell readers to advertisers without losing readers or quality... that's really hard.

Structuring as a non-profit is honestly one of the best services to humanity. Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't putting food on the table of the hungry - not directly, at least - but cataloguing and showing, entirely for free with no catch, a simplified version of the sum of human knowledge, without profiting from it, is absolutely and utterly incredible. It's similar to why I respect google so much: they've essentially indexed and made searchable a large subset of the sum of written human knowledge. The difference is they're able to make money off it without really losing objectivity much (despite what shitheads in europe might think - they've largely failed, as an entire sector, from a computer and technology point of view, and want to regulate to replace innovation) and that is also excellent. Two different ways of accomplishing similar things. But if there's no money, then there's no money.

[Spork]

You may be taking the term "non-profit" further than it can really be taken.  There is nothing magic about "non-profit".  It's a tax structure.  It does not mean the people that work there don't profit... only that the corporation itself doesn't (any more than a for-profit corporation is guaranteed to make money).

I worked for a non profit a long time ago.  It was a bit of a tax scam.  Don't let the word sway you one way or the other.  Judge on the individual companies (no matter their status.)

[gimp]

It is likely that Wales makes his living from Wikipedia. He is not paid directly by the Wikimedia Foundation, and he claims that he is not reimbursed for expenses while conducting Wikipedia business, even when traveling to board meetings. The way Mr. Wales makes a living is by getting $50,000 to $70,000 per speaking engagement when he goes and lectures about Wikipedia.[8][9][10][11]. He is represented by the Harry Walker Agency[12].

How does Jimmy Wales make money? In his own words:

Speaking, yes. Writing. Serving on boards (I was on the board of Hunch for example). I take no salary or expenses from the Wikimedia Foundation because as the main "face" of the fundraiser, it's important that people understand that donor money is not for me.[13]

There is nothing magical about a non-profit, and many are sleazy. Wikipedia is, as far as I know, not one of those. Of course they have to pay employees.

I put my money where my mouth is and donated a few bucks today for the first time.

[Lkxe]

Wales doesn't "own" Wikipedia and did not get to profit from its success in the same way as he would have if it were a for-profit corporation.

And given that Wikipedia is in the midst of a drive asking for donations, it's pretty clear that there would not have even been much "success" for him to profit from even if he did own it (of course if it ran ads, it would be a whole different story).

Thanks for reminding me- I support every year

[resy]

Wales doesn't "own" Wikipedia and did not get to profit from its success in the same way as he would have if it were a for-profit corporation.

And given that Wikipedia is in the midst of a drive asking for donations, it's pretty clear that there would not have even been much "success" for him to profit from even if he did own it (of course if it ran ads, it would be a whole different story).

I'm kind of surprised that the OP didn't see the donation pop-up when reading Wales's entry; seems like that would have immediately made it clear that Wikipedia is not a cash-cow!

ETA: and furthermore, the part of Wales's entry that mentions his net worth contains a clickable citation that links to an article explaining all of this in great detail! Why did this thread even get created?

Actually, I did notice the fundraising. Noticed it's not a bad amount either that donations bring in if you go to charity navigator. I suppose I wonder if so.e donations go to him in some way...wouldn't be the first to do it (not implying he is, just truly curious)
and why did I create the thread? Because I wanted to, that's why. I had a question and thought maybe someone on the forum might know more about this man. Wtf is up with the attitude? You seem pleasant...

[resy]

Wales doesn't "own" Wikipedia and did not get to profit from its success in the same way as he would have if it were a for-profit corporation.

And given that Wikipedia is in the midst of a drive asking for donations, it's pretty clear that there would not have even been much "success" for him to profit from even if he did own it (of course if it ran ads, it would be a whole different story).

Thanks for reminding me- I support every year

my husband and I were discussing donating today! I suppose that's part of the reason I also thought to poke around. (Checked charitynavigator as well as read his account of what happens with the money).
It is pretty awesome he really does seem to not care about the $.

[gimp]

I think he cares about money - from what I read, his lifestyle is... a bit more lavish than mine (spending like $20k a month). But he seems to be above-board in that he profits off his association with wikipedia but doesn't actually take any money from the non-profit, neither through salary, reimbursements, nor "consulting"; this means the money goes to support the staff and the service (hosting etc). Not only that, but they don't advertise their site, they don't spend money on "raising awareness" or any other such nebulous shite; they simply run an excellent service. It would not offend me, for example, to find out that their staff get paid more than market rate - since the website is far more impressive than what market rate tends to get you, just as it wouldn't offend me to find out that they had more load balancers than strictly needed or were using more expensive switches, etc etc.

That's not to imply the man is a saint - it seems he ruthlessly cut out a cofounder - but as far as causes go, it's above-board and very straightforward in what you donate for.