OK... this is the kind of thing I am talking about.
"It's resource-efficient because it relies on volunteer labour."
That's one of the reasons, and it's not a bad reason at all. In fact, I would say that wikipedia couldn't buy what it gets for free at any price. It's also for other reasons. Wikipedia serves lightweight websites. It has a lightweight management structure. It has a lightweight content moderation function.
None of these are incidental. They are what efficiency is made of.
In any case, what is your comment demonstrating other that everything can be criticised. By what standard, is wikimedia worthy of your scorn?
Ensuring your charitable donations are actually doing the good you think it is, is difficult enough that there are organizations specifically created to rate them and verify what they say. When a charitable organization does a poor job of it, they rightly earn the scorn they receive, because they are betraying a trust. I donate to a number of charities (including Wikipedia) and if any one of them were found to be operating as it appears Wikipedia is, I would move my money elsewhere, which is what I intend to do in this case.
"It's resource-efficient because it relies on volunteer labour."
That's one of the reasons, and it's not a bad reason at all. In fact, I would say that wikipedia couldn't buy what it gets for free at any price. It's also for other reasons. Wikipedia serves lightweight websites. It has a lightweight management structure. It has a lightweight content moderation function.
None of these are incidental. They are what efficiency is made of.
In any case, what is your comment demonstrating other that everything can be criticised. By what standard, is wikimedia worthy of your scorn?