Wikipedia’s Economic Value

 Posted by on October 3, 2013  Add comments
Oct 032013
 

jon-band[Jonathan Band and Jonathan Gerafi]  In the copyright policy debate, proponents of strong copyright protection tend to be dismissive of the quality of freely available content. In response to counter-examples such as open access scholarly publications and advertising-supported business models (e.g., newspaper websites and the over-the-air television broadcasts viewed by 50 million Americans), the strong copyright proponents center their attack on amateur content. In this narrative, YouTube is for cat videos and Wikipedia is a wildly unreliable source of information.

Recent studies, however, indicate that the volunteer-written and -edited Wikipedia is no less reliable than professionally edited encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Britannica.  Moreover, Wikipedia has far broader coverage. Britannica, which discontinued its print edition in 2012 and now appears only online, contains 120,000 articles, all in English. Wikipedia, by contrast, has 4.3 million articles in English and a total of 22 million articles in 285 languages. Wikipedia attracts more than 470 million unique visitors a month who view over 19 billion pages. According to Alexa, it is the sixth most visited website in the world.

Wikipedia, therefore, is a shining example of valuable content created by non-professionals. Is there a way to measure the economic value of this content? Because Wikipedia is created by volunteers, is administered by a non-profit foundation, and is distributed for free, the normal means of measuring value—such as revenue, market capitalization, and book value—do  not directly apply. Nonetheless, there are a variety of methods for estimating its value in terms of its market value, its replacement cost, and the value it creates for its users. These methods suggest a valuation in the tens of billions of dollars, a one-time replacement cost of $6.6 billion with an annual updating cost of $630 million, and consumer benefit in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Click here for our full analysis of Wikipedia’s Economic Value (Updated October 7, 2013)

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendly

  2 Responses to “Wikipedia’s Economic Value”

  1. “In the copyright policy debate, proponents of strong copyright protection tend to be dismissive of the quality of freely available content. In response to counter-examples such as open access scholarly publications…” Wait a minute – what do “open access scholarly publications” have to do with copyright? The answer is, nothing. Open access does not involve copyright at all. In fact, such publications are always protected by copyright unless they come with an explicit no-copyright license. It is a mistake to think that open access equates with “no copyright” – just as it would be a mistake to equate copyright with “no or restricted access”. Academics benefit if their open access papers are copyright so that they have recourse if someone plagiarizes or otherwise steals their expressed ideas. That doesn’t stop them from being circulated for free, and it is a mistake to suggest otherwise.

  2. First, Wikipedia actually is a professionally edited encyclopedia. While many still believe that there are only a few of us who professionally edit, the truth is that paid editing is more wide spread than anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation can imagine. Now, as far as reliability, it doesn’t really matter. There have been debates about the reliability of Wikipedia since day 1. My take is simple…….if people believe that Wikipedia is unreliable, then how is it in the top 10 most visited websites in the world? This means that even if the majority of the population feels it is inaccurate, they are still turning to it for answers.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)


*