<story><title>Wikimedia Foundation&apos;s runaway spending growth</title><url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>jessriedel</author><text>See extensive discussion on HN (1054 points, 406 comments) of this issue back in May.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=14287235&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=14287235&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Wikimedia Foundation&apos;s runaway spending growth</title><url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>film42</author><text>&amp;gt; The modern Wikipedia hosts 11–12 times as many pages as it did in 2005, but the WMF is spending 33 times as much on hosting...&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia also keeps &amp;quot;revision history&amp;quot; and a &amp;quot;talk&amp;quot; section for each page. Those original pages created before 2005 can still be modified, potentially adding to the overall cost. Breaking news stories can cause massive amounts of churn which I imagine has increased with the site&amp;#x27;s popularity [1]. So really 11x pages = 33x higher hosting costs doesn&amp;#x27;t seem unrealistic considering how much metadata is associated with each page. That&amp;#x27;s not to say there isn&amp;#x27;t a problem, but &amp;quot;page count&amp;quot; might not be the best metric. I wonder what average number of revisions per page looks like over the last 12 years.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;xtools.wmflabs.org&amp;#x2F;articleinfo&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;Talk:2017_Las_Vegas_Strip_shooting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;xtools.wmflabs.org&amp;#x2F;articleinfo&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;Talk...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>