Stack overflow has the same business model.
Arguably the same rings true of every wiki, internet forum and community site in general.
The question hence becomes 'what point does a site or service go from being innocent to exploitative?'
Few would say Wikipedia is exploiting its users. Some may say that about StackOverflow or YouTube, but many would say it about BuzzFeed or the Huffington Post.
What's the line between a community and a platform and a publisher? What kinds of sites and services and business models based on user generated free content are a good thing and which aren't?
(It adds a little of discoverability and traffic, that is nice and useful in internal meetings, but it's not my main reason to use it.)
From wikipedia they get information, from the Stackexchange network - answers to questions that enable or improve their work or hobby; Buzzfeed's Justin Bieber haircut quizzes, however, do not provide any value to the users, apart from a tiny fleeting endorphin rush, maybe.
Depends on whether you measure people's stated or revealed preferences. Traffic stats make the revealed preferences pretty clear.
And unlike certain other websites Stack Overflow shares the dataset back to us.
You started with exploitative commercial sites which "tend to have the same business model." Wikipedia doesn't belong on the low end of a concocted poll of "few---some---many" in that regard. It's a different class of service with a completely different governance, content licensing, software licensing, and log access model. Putting it there pretends those issues aren't vital to your set of questions.
Is BF designed so that Rachel naturally learns how the BF sausage gets made? Seems that a) she never had any interaction with decision makers at BF, b) she still has no way to deduce what inferences can be made when people click on BF quizzes, c) she had no access to the decision-making process at BF nor how her work affects to it.
The consequence of that is she was blind-sided by a set of ethical concerns. It was a tweet from a laid-off employee that first suggested her work may affect BF's bottom line and the livelihood of the people who worked there. The pipe that connected her with BF almost seems designed to have prevented her from ever facing any ethical concern whatsoever.
>Few would say Wikipedia is exploiting its users. Some may say that about StackOverflow or YouTube, but many would say it about BuzzFeed or the Huffington Post.
You may have answered your own question with your examples. Wikipedia isn't monetized at all. It relies entirely on fundraising. All the rest have some sort of monetization model which is built around the assumption that their users will generate free content that gives their platform its value.
On the monetization spectrum, though, I would say StackOverflow does much better than YouTube. It's designed entirely around providing value to its users, rather than merely selling their eyeballs (you can find lots of information about SO's approach to monetization here: https://stackoverflow.blog/2016/11/15/how-we-make-money-at-s...).
My personal spectrum from best to worst looks like this:
1. Funded by donations (sort of utopian and doesn't always work)
2. Funded by directly selling services/goods worthwhile to the community (pragmatic and mutually beneficial)
3. Funded by selling generic ad space to third parties (lazy as business models go, but newspapers have been doing it for centuries - this is usually a sign the organization doesn't have a well-defined audience: cf. Facebook/Youtube vs. Stack Overflow)
4. Funded by secretively profiling people and selling their personal information without telling them (just evil and gross)
As for platform vs. publisher, that's been an interesting topic in internet law. See for instance Cubby vs. CompuServe in 91: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.