There are obvious and important costs if Wikipedia articles start being perceived as promotional material rather than encyclopedia entries.
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.