Seriously, though, bytes are cheap, and an article sitting somewhere in Wikipedia doing nothing and bothering no-one is pretty damned cheap too.
Seriously, though, bytes are cheap, and an article sitting somewhere in Wikipedia doing nothing and bothering no-one is pretty damned cheap too.
There are obvious and important costs if Wikipedia articles start being perceived as promotional material rather than encyclopedia entries.
There is a cost, but it's measured in hours of maintenance labor not bytes of storage.
If Wikipedia wants to maintain a semblance of accuracy [1] in the face of declining participation, it needs to concentrate its labor resources rather than spread them out.
[1] which IMHO is vital given its unwise prestige as arbiter or truth
[1] Among other reasons, more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_los...
I'm not as interested in the viability of Wikipedia's culture than the reliability of Wikipedia as a resource given its prominence. I'd take a dead Wikipedia over one that's lively and fun but full of crap and poorly-checked influence attempts.
It's never going to recapture its halcyon days, so it's going to have to evolve with the times in more ways than one.