geni wrote: I disagree. All of those measures represent various forms of government intrusion likely to change editor behaviors in a way which can reasonably be expected to degrade article quality and comprehensiveness. Oliver Keyes wrote: I presume that this opinion doesn't have any actual data behind it. Here is some actual data, from the county where I went to school: "The school system, which keeps the best records of homelessness in the county, says the number of homeless students rose from 59 in 2001 to 2,812 in the current school year." -- http://prospect.org/article/weeklies So there you have an example of students who would otherwise likely join in the pool of potential editors in the developed world. Over the period of time that Wikipedia has existed, they have become far less likely to become editors because they have far less free time, less access to internet resources, less access to personal educational resources, and less financial capacity to perform ordinary tasks in support of editing such as travel to university libraries and obtaining specialist reference materials. When poverty increases in the developed world, the demand for my customers' products increases in the developing world. Over the past six years, the extent to which this has happened has far surpassed and entirely supplanted my income as a software engineer in Silicon Valley. I resent the insinuation that I am doing anything for myself by showing the connections between poverty and the health of the editor community, when in fact the opposite is true. Sincerely, James Salsman