On 9/22/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/09/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Right on it :-)
It is interesting to see that many of the discussions focus on a question of costs or on a legal question.
Because wikipedians are survival minded. From the point of view of the average wikipedian the job of the foundation is to keep the servers running. Thus having the foundation take on extra liabilities (higher rents and wages and the like) is worrying. It's the standard crisis analysis. If the money stops coming in how long can we keep going. Moving somewhere expensive doesn't help.
I think most people in this thread have said important things that need to be said, and are clearly insightful as a whole.
This is a point though where I really have to say something.
At this time, with its prominence as a premier web-presense, wikipedia *will* not run out of money to run.
We are so well established as top-tier, that even just tickling that prominence for drops of ad or adlike revenue would pretty much swamp us with more money than the foundation has *fundamental* need for, to keep physically running indefinitely.
So the matter of the foundation going broke is not even a red herring at this point, infact it is so far off the scale that common similes fail here.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]