3 ms·
I think the author makes some very valid points about how Wikipedia needs to adapt to the new generation. But at the same time I still do worry about what was
by lamlam 9y ago
I think the author makes some very valid points about how Wikipedia needs to adapt to the new generation.
But at the same time I still do worry about what was mentioned in the original Op Ed about one of the big companies getting their hands on Wikipedia.
So to reduce the risk to Wikipedia doesn't it make sense to split off Wikipedia from all these new ventures? That way if anything goes south Wikipedia still remains as is?
- wapz 9y agoI read both articles and don't understand why wikipedia would ever have to sell. Would they really go bankrupt before putting in ads on the sidebar? I'm sure they understand the only reason another company would buy them is to monetize and they have the potential to very easily do that themselves (even though it's against their values). The only way I see wikipedia's downfall is if they make a lot of "unethical" choices over and over (e.g. allowing companies exclusive access to their articles, paid removal of articles, banning users because their articles don't reflect paid advertisers' ideas, etc)
- Iv 9y agoWikipedia's best insurance is their license. Anyone can start a clone anytime. Many actually do. I am not worried about the future.