On 9/22/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 22/09/2007, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)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]]