12 ms·
I always marvel in a service that could easily monetize their product or traffic but chooses instead to essentially beg for funds. Or even possibly charge for
by larrys 14y ago
I always marvel in a service that could easily monetize their product or traffic but chooses instead to essentially beg for funds. Or even possibly charge for tiered access to the archives (something I would pay for).
- drivebyacct2 14y agoReally? You "marvel" that Wikipedia doesn't charge for access? I hope I never become as "business cynical" as some people here.
- larrys 14y ago"You "marvel" that Wikipedia doesn't charge for access?" I'm not talking about Wikipedia nor did I mention them. My comment is directed toward internet archive a different situation.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago>I always marvel in a service that could easily monetize their product or traffic but chooses instead to essentially beg for funds. Describes Wikipedia word-for-word.
- marshray 14y agoWholesale 'archiving' (copying) of websites seems like a pretty gray area to play in. Of course, it's ridiculously important that someone does it, too. However, I suspect that a big reason they get away with it is that they're a not-for-profit organization. Perhaps I'm not bold enough, but I'd be hesitant to try to 'monetize' the simple re-publication of other people's content.