Posts
The boat is rocking at Wikipedia.
The media is upset that images deemed child pornographic were allowed to persist on the site.
The Wikimedia team is upset because Jimmy went in and deleted them without lengthy consensus discussions.
Wikipedia is a great resource in many regards, but this conflict highlights the problem of free--not only are you bound to be surprised by content that is of low quality or worse, but the article also mentions that Fox News stepped out, calling major donors to Wikimedia and complaining about the offensive material.
Depending on donations entirely, this "free" site depends on funding like everyone else on this planet.
Without consistent sustainability build in and substential maintenance costs, could the site tumble if the "big bad wolf" blows the house down?
Or would a situation like that cause people to rethink the glitzy appeal of "free"?
