zlacker

>>nickpa+(OP)
> Indeed, in the 2012/13 year the Foundation budgeted for $1.9m to provide all its free information on tap.

To be fair to Wikipedia here, quoting a nearly ten year old figure and comparing it to current earnings in order to prove that their required expenses are low is not that honest.

>>Sebb76+47
Costs don't increase by a factor of 50 in ten years.

Note I made the same argument in Wikipedia's community newspaper:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...

Read the comments from Wikipedians underneath. No one claimed it was a dishonest argument to make.

>>akolbe+k7
They don't? Why not? Have the unique users peaked? Are people accessing it less?

I'm pretty happy to wager real money that Wikipedia has had to scale significantly in the last ten years.

But, hey, if you've got evidence to the contrary, I'll happily read it.

>>Edward+5e
No doubt they have had to scale significantly.

… But have they had to scale to a degree commensurate with the amount of money they are spending? Absolutely not. The "Wikipedia has cancer" article makes that point handily.

>>Karuna+Xe
How do you know? If you've run the numbers from their financial statements, I'm keen to see your analysis.