3 ms·
Click-bait redirects here. The figures don't look anything like growth rate of cancer, they look like growth rate of a toenail.. 10-15% a year. Then the autho
by HenriNext 7y ago
Click-bait redirects here.
The figures don't look anything like growth rate of cancer, they look like growth rate of a toenail.. 10-15% a year.
Then the author claims that "spending is growing at an ever-increasing rate" like cancer. But it is not. Draw a trend-line over the spending graph, and you'll see that the growth rate is actually damn linear (and well aligned with revenue growth).
Rest of the article is reasons why spending should be reduced. Well maybe it shouldn't. As long as there is revenue growth, maybe it is better to invest the revenue on better tools. When revenue growth stops, you've got the better tools you invested in, and can then reduce spending by not building further new tools.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- alexsideris 7y agoIf that was the case then every company/startup that fails to raise another round would survive on the "better tools" they developed with their previous funding rounds. But as we know, they die or sell instead.
- HenriNext 7y agoSorry, but that is a broken analogy. Wikipedia's revenue model and cost structure is nothing like startup's.
- alexsideris 7y agoI agree it's not a perfect analogy, Wikipedia's model is even worse. Startups generate revenue as well. Wikipedia is nearly fully dependant on funding.
- zanny 7y agoWikipedia cannot "sell" their product, that's antithetical to it's purpose and mission. Doctors without Borders is not a failure because they rely on donations for disaster relief rather then profiting from it.
- alexsideris 7y agoNo one called Wikipedia or Doctors without Borders a failure. The article states that relying on donations is risky by nature, let alone when increasing expenses every year. I would love to hear your thoughts on this, do you think there is no way donations may decline leaving Wikipedia in trouble with hundreds of people on it's pay roll?
- zanny 7y agoThe risk is that WMF decides, as the article presents, to sell off rather than downsize if donation revenue drops. Wikipedia itself can be sustained on 1% of the donation revenue the foundation is getting each year, so the only threat to Wikipedia is the foundation itself, not that there won't be enough money to keep it maintained, independent, and unmonetized.
- proverbialbunny 7y agoIt could turn into an s-curve. Wikipedia has been reading too much WebMD.
- buzzkillington 7y agoToe nails grow do not exponentially. If toe nails grew like wikipedia expenses - with a doubling time of 5 years - they would grow at 7 meters a day by the time you're 80.