I meant that the very sharply declining cost of solar (and wind) energy, and the extent to which renewable energy is becoming fungible -- see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science…bles. -- is likely to have a profoundly positive economic effect in both the developed and developing world, especially over the next ten years; and that the rate at which the most populous areas of the world are growing in terms of income per capita will combine to support a simple extrapolation of the Foundation's fundraising success. The very rapid per capita income growth in Asia and Africa should last for 15 to 20 years at least. And I don't see any downward pressure on the ability of the Foundation to raise money; especially if transitioning to maintaining existing content is successful. That is why I think this is so important: I agree it can be set up with very little money, and I am completely thrilled beyond words that work is proceeding on it. However, once it is established, it's impossible to say whether volunteers can sustain it at useful levels. I think it's almost impossible that volunteers will keep it up with even half of major edits. However, again, paying people to score revisions (including trial null revisions against existing content, for example, that editors could flag as being out of date, for example) would be like paying them to enrich their own education and improve the encyclopedia and anti-vandalism bots all at the same time. That is a fantastic opportunity for research and development. On the contrary, please see e.g. http://www.wikisym.org/os2014-files/proceedings/p609.pdf this Foundation-sponsored IEG effort can serve as a confirmatory replication of that prior work. I wish someone would please replicate my measurement of the variance in the distribution of fundraising results using the editor-submitted banners from 2008-9, and explain to the fundraising team that distribution implies they can do a whole lot better than sticking with the spiel which degrades Foundation employees by implying they typically spend $3 or £3 on coffee. (Although I wouldn't discount the possibility that some donors feel good about sending Foundation employers to boutique coffee shops.) We know donor message- and banner-fatigue exists as a strong effect which limits the useful life of fundraising approaches in some cases, so they have to keep trying to keep up. When are they going to test the remainder of the editors' submissions?