How is wikipedia monopolistic? All the articles are free and published permissively. They haven't bought out "competitors" or done anything like that.
Also, I'm glad they're doing well but they're not making Facebook-levels of money
Also, I'm glad they're doing well but they're not making Facebook-levels of money
It also shows (seemingly regularly) political and religious bias worldwide. [2]
Wikipedia also seems to regularly be a platform of misinformation. Mass purging of sources. And delisting of accurate information. [3] [4] [5] (sources taken at random, too many to list.)
Wikipedia will always have problems, IMO. It's in it's nature. When I was a kid I would read encyclopedias like the other kids would read comics. It's clear to me that it's best to use Wikipedia as a conduit to sources, not as direct reference to fact.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26871092/
[2] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-culture-war
[3] https://prn.fm/wikipedia-misinformation-prejudice-case-examp...
[4] https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikiped...
[5] https://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia_prejudice_and_KAL_00...
And they're not making Facebook money but they're making far more than small business money.
My point was to be that maybe Wikipedia is a case study in how to make a lot of money without sacrificing your virtues, that maybe there are more specific factors that drive other businesses towards being evil besides just having tons of money.