To quote from the screenshot you linked of a typical Wikimedia Foundation advertisement: [1]<p>&quot;We ... have costs like any other top site: servers, power, rent, programs, staff and legal help.&quot;<p>I count six costs listed there. Doesn&#x27;t look like &quot;pretty shady&quot; advertising to me.<p>Also, &quot;internet hosting costs&quot; in the financial statements isn&#x27;t all the money spent on IT-related costs. For example, computer equipment is counted as an investment which then depreciates. In the 2011 financial statements you linked, Wikimedia spent $3.2m on computer equipment and $1m on depreciation (though depreciation would also include things like furniture). [2]<p>You also haven&#x27;t provided any evidence for your claim Wikimedia promotes &quot;purposeful backlinking to their for profit sites&quot;.<p>Finally, although it&#x27;s an imperfect way to analyse charities, Charity Navigator gives Wikimedia Foundation 93.5&#x2F;100, an excellent score. [3]<p>1. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;regmedia.co.uk&#x2F;2012&#x2F;11&#x2F;28&#x2F;wikipedia_chugging_fullsize.png" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;regmedia.co.uk&#x2F;2012&#x2F;11&#x2F;28&#x2F;wikipedia_chugging_fullsize...</a><p>2. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;upload.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wikipedia&#x2F;foundation&#x2F;a&#x2F;ac&#x2F;FINAL_10_11From_KPMG.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;upload.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wikipedia&#x2F;foundation&#x2F;a&#x2F;ac&#x2F;FINAL...</a><p>3. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.charitynavigator.org&#x2F;index.cfm?bay=search.summary&amp;orgid=11212" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.charitynavigator.org&#x2F;index.cfm?bay=search.summary...</a>