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
It's not about usage going up. It's about the cost of usage going up v the cost of operations going down.

As an example, if we are to trust this site (https://jcmit.net/diskprice.htm), a 2TB HDD was sold for about 160 dollars in 2012. You can purchase 8TB for 130 dollars now.

From this wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics) we can see the amount of English articles has about doubled since then. Chances are that storage costs have not only not gone up, they have gone down.