Should Google buy wikipedia?

>>62321062
no

>>62321062
If they want to kill it.

>>62321062
That would be fucking terrible. They'd update everything to look "modern", add a bunch of pointless animations and shit, fuck no.

Good thing Jimmy Wales will never sell it.

>>62321062
> To edit this article, please sign in with your Google+ account.

does wikipedia make money?

>>62321292
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2015-2016_Fundraising_Report

>>62321396
""""""""non-profit""""""""

File: xx.jpg (17KB, 434x181px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 434x181px

I wonder what kind of email Jimmy will send this year

>>62321510
take a look at churches

File: tv priest.jpg (149KB, 946x563px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 946x563px

>>62321532

>>62321062
Fucking clickbaiting OP, congrats

>>62321510
It just means profit is not their main goal, just a means to and end. Non-profits definitely want to make a profit to stay afloat and contribute to their cause.

>>62321062
inb4 wikipedia gets upgraded with 1000% as much bloatware AJAX while somehow having less features than before

>>62321062
Please no.

>>62322780
that's the official story. at the end of the day the execs get paid lavish amounts of money and get benefits (travel etc), same as with any for-profit company.

>>62321062
No, Jumbo should buy Google with all them Wikiabux.

>>62322810
Shutdown 6 months later.

>>62321062
They would spread their propaganda. Wikipedia is good as it is. It should never be sold.

>>62323404
They have to prove to local government that they are indeed nonprofit every year, so it's not complete bs

>>62321510
You went for the low hanging fruit -- sarcasm. But honestly, do you not see a dramatic difference between wikipedia and for profit tech companies? Wikipedia could make a killing if they allowed adds, but it would ruin the experience.

>>62325046
wikipedia just went for a crowdsourced and crowdfunded business model. not running ads is vital to keep their users and maintain their image. it's not dramatically different to for-profit companies that rely on goodwill to get their customers to back them on kickstarter or to support them on patreon. wikipedia doesn't have "investors" in the same sense as a publicly traded company but jimmy and others involved do have a stake in wikipedia.

https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html

>>62321062
Outreach arm of Alphabet Life Science.

>not running ads is vital to keep their users and maintain their image.
>wikipedia doesn't have "investors" in the same sense as a publicly traded company

this is what is saving Wikipedia.

the moment they get investors, and the moment they take ads, thats the moment they lose their ability to conduct business in the manner they want.
which means if Wikipedia relied on money from other sources that arent donations, (and i dont mean to go full /pol/ here) everyone else will get to dictate what gets published, how it gets published, and any edits that anyone disagrees with regardless of how factual it is, will be removed or censored.