Yes, contribute a bit more is good. But contribute to what? Server costs are (compared to WMF budget) small, the actual contributors never have and never will see a cent.
Stop spreading misinformation. The budget data is open. You're discussing server costs, but need to also consider hosting and data center costs, as well as employee salaries. Running Wikimedia is a pretty decent percentage of their budget.
Part of the reason for other parts of the budget is attempting to increase editor numbers in a world where direct readership is declining (because of products like Google's knowledge graph), and improving inclusiveness, so that content will better represent the world. They are also building an endowment to be able to weather bad fundraising years.
Servers don't run themselves. I'm not saying everything wmf spends money on is useful, but servers are useless without sysadmins.
Keep in mind part of the reason server costs are low is because wikimedia owns its own servers. Lots of people rent servers (e.g. AWS) where the cost of hosting will be higher because the cost of some of the sysadmin duties are covered by the AWS fee, where at wikimedia that is a salary that has to be paid.
> As you can see, from 112M total expenses, internet hosting is 2.4M (or 2%), and 'other operating expenses' is 10M (or 9%). This is 11% of expenses. This compares to 56M for salaries and 23M for awards and grants. Where is the misinformation?
I believe the parent already answered your question:
> You're discussing server costs, but need to also consider hosting and data center costs, as well as employee salaries. Running Wikimedia is a pretty decent percentage of their budget.
The numbers you presented confirm this statement: 56M (salaries) + 2.4M (hosting) + 10M (other operating expenses) = 68.4M (61%)
