"Adds create monopolies, paying for services creates oppertunism for competition." I REALLY disagree with this statement, namely because the data shows otherwi

"Adds create monopolies, paying for services creates oppertunism for competition." I REALLY disagree with this statement, namely because the data shows otherwise when it comes to the online space -- for example, Waze became a legitimate contender by <i>remaining free</i> and instead doing location based advertising. Bing and other search engines are allowed to be decent competitors to Google because advertising drives search. Second, donations is not a scalable model for the internet, as it definitely doesn't allow for competition in any meaningful way at large scale. Why does it work for Wikipedia? Because of its mission to remain free for anyone in the world (also because of a desire to be unbiased, but let's table that for now, because as politics tells us donations don't always lead to unbiased decisions.) And honestly, that should be the crux here: the idea of a paywall for Wikipedia or any site that advocates for free and open information dispersal would immediately devalue its mission -- a rando in Uganda should have the same access to information as me in my cushy western Tech job.