3 ms·

This counter argument would be valid if wikipedia model had failed but it actually manage to fund the project for 10+ years. The day the usual website will rec

This counter argument would be valid if wikipedia model had failed but it actually manage to fund the project for 10+ years. The day the usual website will receive 12 to 20Billions views a month and occupy 10TB of disk space, then we could use wikipedia as a representative example. Until then wikipedia should not be used as an example of how well the usual ad-supported website would fare with an alternative revenue model. IINM wikipedia has chosen a business model not based on ads which successfully funds the project for about 10+ years.

chc 10y ago
> The day the usual website will receive 12 to 20Billions views a month and occupy 10TB of disk space, then we could use wikipedia as a representative example. Until then wikipedia should not be used as an example of how well the usual ad-supported website would fare with an alternative revenue model. Yes, that was my point — Wikipedia is probably the absolute best-case scenario for a free website that isn't supported by ads, and they're still panhandling. The usual ad-supported website would fare much, much worse, and would probably just stop providing its service to the world.