3 ms·
I'm not sure what you're implying, but I would say that $69 million per year is incredibly small compared to the amazing benefit that Wikipedia provides the wor
by falcor84 8y ago
I'm not sure what you're implying, but I would say that $69 million per year is incredibly small compared to the amazing benefit that Wikipedia provides the world. Also, this money comes out of the pockets of people like myself who are happy to sponsor it for everyone else. I personally love this patronage model and would be happy to sponsor an ad-free open-access newspaper in a similar way, if I found one that I had confidence in.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoThat's a silly way to value Wikipedia IMO. Fire is useful, so everyone who uses fire should pay a company some money? No, that's clearly mad. No matter how useful it is if it's poorly optimised or over costly then we should do better, not settle because it's already a great RoI.
- craftyguy 8y agoYour analogy is silly. Fire is free to make (discounting the extremely little time/effort to make it). Hosting an online encyclopedia with low latency, moderation, etc is not.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoFire costs resources and produces costly environmental impacts, in many of the ways we make it it's an engineering marvel (ICE for example), but yeah it's not the greatest analogy.