And it is super arbitrary. There is a joke I made over 10 years ago making fun of a friend and it is still up (totally not giving it away as then it will be deleted).
The admin / oversight is hit or miss to the extreme.
The admin / oversight is hit or miss to the extreme.
There was a fun story I can't find here on HN right now (Algolia is pretty good to search now , but Im out of coffee), On how the guys who make OpenBSD(If I recall) use/used(not clear) CVS instead of GIT to filter out people they didn't ultimately wished to have the attention from.
Of course, there's no way they could formally audit every article. They're heavily reliant of some rando noticing something fishy in an obscure article and bringing it to their attention.
6 million / 30 minutes per article every 5 years at 15$ per hour ~= 9 million per year.
Wikipedia pulled in 55 million in 2017 from North America making this a major but affordable expenditure.
Allowing public edits is different from not paying editors. They can have a small staff of super users which only revert or remove content while remaining a Wiki.
It's neither. The volunteer community is wikipedia, and the foundation exists to serve it, not the other way around. If the foundation paid staff members to edit there would be uproar in the community
Also, if every volunteer quit tomorrow the website could still function, even if just by disabling edits until they employ enough people to review them. So, it’s clearly not the volunteers that are most critical.