I've always thought Google should just buy them. If you're going to index the worlds information, this is a good start. Google has the resources and power to make sure it remains alive and well.
Buying wikipedia would be like paying money for an empty shell. Editors would leave, starting another service, since all the content is free to use and duplicate.
In fact there are several wikipedia clones out there which just duplicate content, with ads inbetween.
It's essentially an open source encyclopedia. Would buying an open source project be worthless? Not if you're buying the brand name, search engine rankings and recognition that go with it. The #5 website in the world is worth something, and the fact that I don't know the names of any wikipedia re-publishers is significant.
I don't think you deserved the many downvotes you received. It's not like you were trolling. People here just downvote things they disagree with. Personally, I think Google should donate a decent amount to WP because Freebase relies on it. Without WP, Freebase would have been useless. (Disclaimer: I have no idea if Google actually donated.)
Thanks, I appreciate that. I wasn't trying to troll at all. It's simply a reality that it takes a certain amount of resources to keep Wikipedia running. If a large donation is more favorable than purchasing them -- then by all means that's the route to go. I simply meant that I would hate to see something like WP suffer if the situation came about where donations aren't enough to keep it running.
I tend to disagree due to future uncertainties. While Google may seem like the ultimate do-no-evil company at this moment, what will happen in 15, or even 30 years? If Google eventually "turns", it may lead to fragmentation of the Wikipedia project, and consequently a lack of focus. To me, Wikimedia (the foundation) seems like the type of foundation that will always keep a clear focus and maintain the core values of Wikipedia.
The world is going to eventually become far more reliant on wireless internet services - Google reneged on their promise to fight for net-neutrality, because they left wireless/mobile internet services unprotected.
Yes, that is a significant compromise. But it is one that the carriers will fight very hard, so Google considered it worthwhile to get agreement on the rest. That's why it was called compromise, rather than being called what Google really wants.
Note that the FTC ruling that they have been lauded for made the exact same compromise, for very similar reasons. What I'm really curious about is the disparity between how they are treated for their respective actions.
Furthermore Google didn't entirely leave wireless unprotected. They lost their 2008 bid for a bunch of wireless spectrum, but got a use restriction applied to Verizon that forces Verizon to respect net neutrality for that bandwidth. So there will be mobile internet services that follow net neutrality.
Google's motivation was to encourage exactly what the FTC did by coming up with a compromise position that was politically realistic. Making it something that a major carrier could sign up to was part of their goal.
In short they were attempting to make it easier for the FTC to do exactly what it did.
I don't understand how a corporation can be altruistic and self-motivated at exactly the same time; Google will always have an incentive to create conditions that are favourable to its business aims.
I'd don't think it's possible to view Google purely in terms of 'don't be evil'. 'Don't be evil' is a part of a marketing campaign.
Why wouldn't the foundation ever go corrupt? Trusting a single institution is never the kind of system that works--that's practically the first lesson of political history. What will keep Wikipedia going is the GFDL/Creative Commons licensing. The freedom to fork (thus distributing trust over many) is better than trusting any single entity.
For the various reasons other people have commented, I can't see anyone ever trying to buy Wikipedia.
However, in reply to your question: In many (I'd argue most) cases, people have a price. Hell, I'd bet that with enough billions you could bribe a hell of a lot of married couples to split up, yet alone someone to abandon their community spirit and sell a volunteer-run organisation.
(Second paraphrase doesn't, however, top the first.)
