
Wikipedia now has more than 6M articles in English - jmsflknr
https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/
======
fhoffa
6 million pages! A quick look at their distribution:

3.6M of these pages got less than 10 views during December. 4.3M pages got
less than 100 views each. 2.3M got less than 1000 views. That's the long tail.
On the other side 680K pages got more than 1,000 views, 111K pages got more
than 10k views, only 6k pages got more than 100k views, and 90 pages were able
to gather more than 1M views (Star Wars, The Mandalorian, The Witcher...).

In summary: The top 7.2% of Wikipedia pages earn 87% of all the monthly views.

Yesterday I posted a deeper analysis on how these pages get their daily views:

\- [https://towardsdatascience.com/interactive-the-
top-2019-wiki...](https://towardsdatascience.com/interactive-the-
top-2019-wikipedia-pages-d3b96335b6ae)

Apparently the most popular pages are all related to movies (Avengers, Joker,
...), series (Ted Bundy, Chernobyl, Game of Thrones), and deaths.

~~~
Udik
> 90 pages were able to gather more than 1M views (Star Wars, The Mandalorian,
> The Witcher...).

So they could cut their network costs by a lot if they just removed pages
about current popular culture, which have the highest view rate and a cultural
value of exactly zero.

Edit: I'm being sarcastic and a bit bitter, the comments below all make good
points. However I find it sad, though unavoidable, that the highest page views
are for highly marketed entertainment franchises that have a slim chance to
withstand the test of time.

~~~
yunruse
This is dangerously dismissive. Cultural value is subjective, and in any case
these articles provide an in-road to other articles, giving the opportunity to
expand people’s knowledge further.

I would, however, support Wikipedia having ads on articles in such pop culture
categories – and those alone, of course, to avoid conflict of interest where
factual accuracy is more vital. This would have to be carefully managed by the
Wikimedia Foundation — marking articles for monetisation should be handled
only by a specific role – but if done quite carefully and in a privacy- and
user-respecting manner (eg Carbon ads [0]) could potentially subside the
academic content without damaging Wikipedia’s brand.

[0] [https://www.carbonads.net](https://www.carbonads.net)

~~~
AdmiralGinge
That's a terrible idea in my opinion, any advertising at all on Wikipedia
would be the thin edge of a very unpleasant wedge. Wikipedia is many people's
first stop for knowledge, we _really_ don't want people being able to buy
eyeball space next to what's supposed to be unbiased content.

Additionally, expanding advertising generally is a bad move when exposure to
advertising has been shown to be negatively correlated to quality of life and
contentedness. We need to be transitioning _away_ from advertising as a
primary driver of the online economy, not fuelling it further. Advertising
should only be employed when there's no better option in my opinion, not the
first thing you reach for monetising a site. We should see advertising like
fossil fuels, a regrettable necessity that we should aim to phase out.

------
majos
I’m a big fan of Wikipedia. It’s not perfect, and plenty of pages are outright
bad, but repeatedly clicking “random page” [1] is a great source of
entertainment to me. There’s so much info out there, yet I reliably get
something surprising, interesting, or funny within maybe 10 random pages. And
because it’s random, I learn things way outside my normal interests.

Try it if you find yourself mindlessly scrolling! It’s pretty easy but you
find way more cool things (that typically people don’t broadly know about, if
you like that sort of thing).

I donate a few bucks a month and it’s well worth it.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:random](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:random)

~~~
Liquix
Wikipedia is AWESOME and I admire your selflessness & generosity in donating
to a cause :)

However, before giving them any more money I would recommend reading through
the (Wikipedia-hosted, ironically) article titled "Wikipedia has Cancer". The
revenue vs. employee count/operating costs ratio is _way_ off. Like, orders of
magnitude off.

It's a tough pill to swallow considering how useful the site is and their
respectable "information should be free for all" mission.

Again, your generosity is admired and there are far worse causes to donate
towards. Just want to make sure people see both sides of the coin before
spending hard earned cash!

~~~
majos
I remember this essay, the author’s main argument was: Wikipedia seemed fine
10 years ago with 5% of its current money, so the increased spending (and
calls for donations to cover it) seems unjustified.

I side with the author in requesting more transparency about what exactly
donations get spent on, but this strict argument in terms of how spending
growth just “looks” unreasonable isn’t convincing. Namely, it’s pretty
plausible to me that scaling big to very big is more costly than scaling
medium to big, so this comparison of increasing costs to cancer makes me
skeptical.

I don’t have any proof that Wikipedia uses donations judiciously, but the
scale and quality of the service they offer relative to the annual revenue
(about 100m) and expenses (about 80m) seems...pretty good.

At any rate, I mostly view this as “paying a little for a good service” rather
than “donating efficiently”.

But thanks for the pointer.

~~~
jfim
They're actually pretty transparent in their annual report [0].

The issue is that their ads are slightly misleading in that they hint that
they might have to pull the plug ("we depend on donations [...] we need your
help [...] time is running out in 2019 to help us") even though the time is
running out in 2019 part is because they're running the ads during the end of
the year, not because they're running out of money. They spent 46 million in
salaries out of 120 million in revenue, while the hosting expenses are one of
their smallest line items at 2.3 million.

[0]
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikimedia_Foundation_Audit_Report_-
_FY18-19.pdf)

------
RivieraKid
It's easy to forget how amazing Wikipedia is because people are so used to it.
It's also an anomaly in todays internet landscape - no ads, popups or auto-
play videos. I think it's literally the best website in existence.

If you suggested 20 years ago that there will soon exist a free online
encyclopedia, which has two orders of magnitude more words than Britannica, is
updated daily and is mostly unbiased - they would probably think it's
impossible.

~~~
segfaultbuserr
> _no ads, popups or auto-play videos._

Also, there are no 100 JavaScript tracking scripts on Wikipedia, and it's
probably one of the fastest sites among the top-100 websites in the world.

~~~
Polylactic_acid
Most websites start out like wikipedia and then they feel the constant
pressure to expand and now they have a mountain of expenses to cover so they
tarnish the website in an effort to squeeze every last $ out of the user. I
like how wikipedia has stuck to its original goal and kept a lean budget while
delivering one of the most used websites on the internet.

~~~
busymom0
Agree with everything except the "lean budget" part. My other comment has
breakdown of their costs. They spend way too much money imo:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22135938](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22135938)

~~~
segfaultbuserr
Yes, it's my worry too. The Wikimedia Foundation kept expanding, and it may be
unsustainable.

------
drej
It's only shame that Wikidata doesn't get as much attention. It's a knowledge
graph that runs _some_ of Wikipedia's content. I became involved recently and
what I'd like to do is to get Wikipedians to use Wikidata more (e.g.
automatically loading births and deaths on people's profiles), because once
these two services are more interlinked, we're gonna get more knowledge graph
info for free since people editing Wikipedia will keep improving this
structured dataset.

I'd encourage people to get involved in either of these two projects - there's
always a niche you know about and could improve its presence in the Wiki
world.

~~~
zweep
Is Wikidata how, for example, when a particular football team wins the Super
Bowl, its articles are updated, the articles about the Super Bowl are updated,
the article about the list of teams that have won multiple Super Bowls is
updated, etc... all very quickly? Or is that just an army of volunteers.

~~~
drej
There are two aspects of this:

1\. If all superbowl-related articles used an extraction mechanism that links
wikipedia with wikidata, then only the wikidata entry needs updating and all
these articles get updated automatically. 2\. That wikidata update I mentioned
was manual, but a lot of data in Wikidata is updated automatically (e.g.
births and deaths from some databases, city population counts etc.), so some
things get updated across the board automatically. That's a source of pushback
against this - articles being updated automatically, so bad actors can change
a lot of things at once.

~~~
sornaensis
Surely having fewer points of information control makes auditing for
suspicious/malicious edits easier than relying on auditing individual
articles?

------
preommr
Wikipedia is the most incredible creation in modern times. Because it's not
about some law of the universe that people have learned enough about to use to
their advantage like electricity or nuclear physics. It's something inherent
to us as a species that we came together to create a resource for everyone to
access and that it has such a high level of quality. The culture around
Wikipedia - the culmination of knowledge, the importance of said knowledge,
the random curiosity of such a wide variety of topics and so much more, says
so much about us as people.

If you had asked me half a century ago if something like this would ever work
- I would've said absolutely not. And yet, there it is.

~~~
Balgair
> It's something inherent to us as a species that we came together to create a
> resource for everyone to access and that it has such a high level of
> quality.

Oh man, if only it were true! If anything, wikipedia should be seen as an
overcoming of our terrible human nature in making something good in the world,
not as a property of humans. It is SO precious and fragile in our mortal
hands.

The story of the Encyclopédie's origins is _incredible_ and a great reminder
that works like wikipedia are the exception, not the rule. The Philosophes
worked very hard to get the volumes out and were under constant threat of
censure. The very _idea_ of the Encyclopédie was a direct threat to the
Ancient Regime and it's publication was a direct cause (among _many_ ) of the
French Revolution. A revolution whose effects we feel until this very day. The
Encyclopédie was a lit cigarette in a powder cache. It's head editor, Diderot,
is _still_ a controversial person. If you can have haters and lovers nearly
250 years after you dance your last, well kiddo, you've done _something_
right.

Even today wikipedia is vandalized by powerful interests and is routinely
censored out of existence for many of the people of the world. Governments are
still afraid of the free knowledge that wikipedia gives us. It is still a lit
cigarette in a powder cache. But it is a fragile thing.

Cherish it: DONATE

[https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Landi...](https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LandingPage&country=US&uselang=en&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_source=donate&utm_campaign=C13_en.wikipedia.org)

~~~
Razengan
> _of our terrible human nature_

The ability to learn and teach is the very core of human nature that sets us
apart from other animals.

~~~
9dev
Does it set us apart, though? Crows, apes and dolphins have all been known to
teach both their offspring and fellow animals.

~~~
spdionis
We do it so much better that the quantitative difference becomes a qualitative
difference.

------
brenden2
Wikipedia is an incredible achievement. It's one of the only information
sources I find to be consistently useful across a broad range of topics. It's
also one of the only remaining sources I feel to be mostly trustworthy.

These days I append either "wikipedia" or "reddit" to most of my Google
searches in order to get useful information. There's so much SEO'd garbage out
there, but Wikipedia remains a breath of fresh air.

~~~
IIAOPSW
Why not skip the middleman and go directly to wikipedia or reddit?

~~~
jacobajit
Reddit/Wikipedia search are an order of magnitude worse than Google

~~~
jolmg
I don't know about Reddit, but for Wikipedia I just write a guess for the
title of the article I'm looking for, and if I'm not redirected to the proper
title of the article, then I'm normally sent to a disambiguation page. I've
never found myself in need of something like Google for Wikipedia.

~~~
shawabawa3
That works if you know the article you want, but for something more abstract
wiki search is terrible

I just came up with this example on the spot, searching wikipedia for
"inventor of paracetamol", the first result on wiki search is "Polymorphism",
then "Diphenhydramine", then "List of Suicides", then "Menstruation"

Searching google for "inventor of paracetamol wiki" links to the wikipedia
Paracetamol page subsection History

~~~
jolmg
Oh, indeed. I think Wiki's search is based on just the titles and probably
their redirection aliases, not the article bodies.

------
aeyes
If you speak other languages Wikipedia certainly gets very interesting. German
Wikipedia is pretty good, for some topics it is better than English Wikipedia.
But Spanish Wikipedia is quite sad to read, todays articles have the quality I
remember from when Wikipedia was 2 or 3 years old even though there are many
times more Spanish than German speakers in the world. Then there are the
Swedish and Cebuana Wikipedias which are large but were mostly created by a
bot with almost useless stub articles.

It makes me wonder what information sources other countries like China, India
or Japan use.

~~~
SJSque
What's always struck me is how large the Dutch Wikipedia is (1,992,551
articles), given the relatively low number of people that speak that language.
They would appear to be a pretty tech-savvy/well-connected nation.

It's certainly consistent with the number of comments that I see here on HN
that start with some variation on "Here in the Netherlands...".

~~~
aeyes
This page isn't up to date but it mentions that many Dutch articles were
created by bots:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Wikipedia)

This up to date graph from the German Wikipedia clearly shows the jumps:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Wikipedi...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Wikipedia-
Artikelanzahl-Entwicklung-Top8.png)

------
scarejunba
Wikipedia is great. Every time I create an article, it ends up being tended to
by a bunch of gardener bots who fix up all the markup and make it look nice
and put an infobox in, and then other people add a little and so on and it
just gets better. Honestly, pretty astounding.

------
ignoramous
How's [https://golden.com](https://golden.com) doing? I have come across some
really detailed Wikipedia articles (for sports events, for example) and at
times some really drab ones which I try to edit to improve. But _original
research_ articles sometimes do contain a lot more specific information that
doesn't survive editor scrutiny on Wikipedia. And the less we talk about
numerous advertisment/PR/fluff articles and socio/geo-political edit wars
being played out, the better.

Take tech pages for example, I really think an enormous amount of information
in blogs, online magazines, research papers need to be out there in Wikipedia
pages too, if not as actual texts but as references.

For instance, here's an article on HAMT [0] and another on Radix Trees [1] but
the corresponding Wikipedia pages [2][3] for those aren't as _consumable_ as
the other two.

There are also cases where pages are deleted because _original research_ ,
like Willy Tarreau's EB Trees [4] that powers routing, caching on HAProxy.

I tend to research more on Wikipedia than search engines, to be honest. May
be, the search engines can get smart enough to amalgamate a page on the
searched topic given the amount of open-web they crawl?

[0] [https://blog.mattbierner.com/hash-array-mapped-tries-in-
java...](https://blog.mattbierner.com/hash-array-mapped-tries-in-javascript/)

[1] [https://vincent.bernat.ch/en/blog/2017-ipv4-route-lookup-
lin...](https://vincent.bernat.ch/en/blog/2017-ipv4-route-lookup-linux)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_array_mapped_trie](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_array_mapped_trie)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_tree](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_tree)

[4] [https://wtarreau.blogspot.com/2011/12/elastic-binary-
trees-e...](https://wtarreau.blogspot.com/2011/12/elastic-binary-trees-
ebtree.html)

------
NeoBasilisk
The article count would actually be much higher if they weren't diligent about
deleting or merging articles that they don't find notable.

~~~
firediamond
My thought on seeing the headline was along the same vein. 6M seemed like a
rather low number.

Not to say it isn't an impressive one by any means. I was just a little
surprised.

------
Thorentis
Wikipedia is becoming so much more than an encyclopedia. I am constantly
amazed at the level of detail people are willing to document things in.

For instance, I wanted to find which episode I was up to in a particular
series, so I Google it, find a Wikipedia page for the series, and sure enough
there's a table listing every season and every episode, with a short synopsis
of each episode.

I'd say a very large portion of all page views are due to media related
queries (TV shows, movies, books etc.).

------
antsoul
Don't forget to thank the WikiGnomes for their work.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao)

"What is your favorite good article that you contributed significantly to, or
assisted significantly in it obtaining good status?" Ser Amantio di Nicolao :
I have not worked on any good articles.

------
Bayart
I can't read the article because the consent parameters for data collection
are hidden behind layers upon layers of misleading UI and links, with a broken
captcha inserted in the middle.

So, Techcrunch can fuck off from now on I guess.

------
airstrike
One step closer to the Ancient Database[0]. Which one of you is going to build
the holo room?

[0]
[https://www.gateworld.net/wiki/Ancient_database](https://www.gateworld.net/wiki/Ancient_database)

~~~
orange3xchicken
I always thought of wikipedia as an Encyclopedia Galactica - even though it's
edited more like the Hitchhikers Guide.

------
dimensi0nal
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Active_editors_on_En...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Active_editors_on_English_Wikipedia_over_time.png)

~~~
jessriedel
Looks stable?

~~~
mactrey
It's impressive that it's stable considering there's probably a lot less to do
on Wikipedia today than there was in 2007.

~~~
jessriedel
In what sense is there a certain "amount of work to do" defined independently
of the number of volunteers and their interests?

The only thing I can think of is that as the wiki grows in size, the amount of
work that needs to be done to maintain fixed quality (combating vandalism,
counteracting normal decay, fixing link rot) goes up roughly proportional to
the number and length of articles.

I guess you mean something like "Wikipedia ought to have an article on X, and
didn't in 2007 but does in 2020". That certainly tracks the fact that there
was more low-hanging fruit in 2007, but I don't think writing that article
means there's any less work for a fixed number of editors to do. The amount of
work left to do -- between here and a complete encyclopedia of all human
knowledge -- is damn near infinite, and is limited mostly by editor interest.

~~~
mactrey
Wikipedia's rules on notability and article length prevent it from growing
infinitely (in theory). So my point is exactly that - all that "low-hanging
fruit" is mostly gone, and most of the actual writing work that's left is
either writing a new article on a subject that is at the margin of notability,
which one would expect the average adult to have less interest in than writing
a new article on a truly notable subject, or rewriting a section of an
existing more notable article which tends to annoy whichever editor last
edited it.

But you make a good point that the maintenance work probably grows linearly
with the size of the corpus, so really the flat number of active editors shows
that the number of editors actively engaged in the research and writing of
entries has probably actually declined significantly since 2007.

~~~
commoner
> Wikipedia's rules on notability and article length prevent it from growing
> infinitely (in theory).

That doesn't appear to be true. New people are born, new events occur, new
things are discovered, and new entertainment is released every day, all of
which increase the pool of eligible topics on Wikipedia. As long as history
continues to be made, new articles will continue to be written.

~~~
incompatible
Companies, sport, politics, arts, endless churn. It's not unusual to find out-
of-date articles on Wikipedia. It also seems to be that a surprisingly small
proportion of edits add new information.

------
hncensorsnonpc
Wikipedia also is dominated by a elite class of early contributors, PC
censorship people or people working directly for the cooperation or on their
behalf. There are many accounts with more edits a day the humanly possible or
356 days of the year or article edits from IPs directly from government
agencies whitewashing ... they do not even try or know how to hide it. When it
comes to info outside of like nature science then wiki is NOT a re

liable and unbiased source at all.

~~~
spats1990
[dubious—discuss]

------
jonbaer
Wonder what a 6M set would cost these days,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia)

~~~
busymom0
For 2018

[https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-
report/](https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/)

[https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-
report/fin...](https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-
report/financials-leadership/)

[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie...](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries)

They are spending 81 million in expenses, a lot of of which is salaries.

------
peter_d_sherman
First love: Books

Second love: Wikipedia

------
DonCopal
The only problem with Wikipedia is figuring out in what revision was a certain
text added. There are 2 tools, but they are not very good.

------
Zenst
Really isn't that many when you compare it with things like the English
language has over 40,000 words that are 8 letters long. Something I looked up
recently out of curiosity with regards to the UK TV show Countdown, which has
been running for years and is of French origins.

------
whalabi
There's only 6 million notable places, people, businesses, abstract concepts,
historical occurrences, species, theories, etc?

Does this mean wiki is actually missing a lot?

Or are there less things of note than one would think?

~~~
killjoywashere
There are competing philosophies on Wikipedia, deletionist vs inclusionist.
Overall the inclusionists tend to win more than they loose, but the
deletionists are a source of resistance to overcome. Some deletionist
decisions have been decried as anti-intellectual, but they also contribute to
the density of quality, so it's hard to say they're evil. More like neutrals
with an incentive, but from the perspective of the self-ascribed "good"
inclusionists, the vector between inclusion and deletion points toward evil,
and is thus forever frustrating.

~~~
whalabi
I didn't know about that, thanks

------
tito
Just 6,000,000 topics of interest to cover all of history. That's about 1 per
1,000 people on the planet.

There are 5.6 million small businesses in the United States alone. [1]

Imagine a Wikipedia that had more like 6 trillion articles. I'm enamored with
a startup named Golden ([https://golden.com](https://golden.com)) which aims
to do just that.

[1] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/257521/number-of-
small-b...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/257521/number-of-small-
businesses-in-the-us/)

~~~
lasagnaphil
I don’t think that startup will succeed to the same degree as Wikipedia.
Making an successful online encyclopedia isn’t a tech problem, it’s more of a
community problem. And it’s stupidly hard to maintain such a vibrant
community, moreso if for-profit entities are involved. I’ve seen so many cases
where the contributors leave the website due to clashes with corporate members
(see StackExchange for an example) In a for-profit service where content is
made by contributors without any pay, there’s an inherent power imbalance
between the contributors and the platform owners, and it’s natural that
tensions will arise.

~~~
tito
But what if it did succeed?

------
loeg
Is this now a positive metric? They could have had 6 million 5 years ago if
they didn't delete quite so many.

------
agumonkey
Ha, well intersting
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_in_Small_Pieces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_in_Small_Pieces)
has been deleted.

Apparently it was considered ambiguous promotion.

------
carlsborg
Are there any AI benchmarks that use Wikipedia as a corpus?

------
iamgopal
Does anybody remember knol from Google ?

------
HenryKissinger
Unfortunately, the .ORG domain registry is being sold to a private equity
firm.

Could Wikipedia just switch to .com? How technically difficult would it be?

~~~
Uehreka
If the Wikimedia foundation lost their .org domains, not only would they need
to find a new domain, but they wouldn’t be able to redirect requests from the
billions of links to Wikipedia on the internet, and all those links would die.

I also don’t think that will happen. If the new .org owners took down a world-
beloved high-traffic site like Wikipedia, the public outcry from people of all
political persuasions would make government regulation of the domain become
quite likely and I’m pretty sure .org’s new owners don’t want that smoke. I
also don’t even know the rules, it might be impossible for them to do so for
some technical reason.

------
soheil
To take a contrarian viewpoint: maybe Wikipedia isn't so good after all.

In a capitalistic model it makes little sense why Wikipedia should thrive
without enriching someone so massively in the process, therefore, it must be
corrected. If we assume that line of thinking is valid (which I'm not saying
we should or shouldn't) then it follows that an alternative Wikipedia riddled
with ads would be a superior model, in terms of capitalism. It'd be much more
similar to imdb perhaps, owned by Amazon. Wikipedia (in the film category)
provides information in a much effective way and can stay on top of change by
issuing revisions way better than imdb can ever do. If we jump to the most
logical conclusion of the set of assumptions made above I think it then
follows that readily accessible knowledge cannot necessarily be a good thing,
otherwise, the market would have rewarded that. But we see in the case of imdb
market did not reward it enough for it to achieve the same pedigree as
Wikipedia.

It's not good for people to learn facts that easily. There should be a higher
cost associated with that. This is of course a ridiculous conclusion but I
think it could make sense why it would be true. It is a whole other post for
why it would be true but I will only give an example or two.

One example is if knowledge is that easily accessible then anyone could
achieve it without necessarily having enough desire to achieve said knowledge,
and since we have limited capacity for knowledge acquisition and retainment we
are most likely sacrificing knowledge that we are truly passionate about.

Second example is maybe it isn't good for people to know so much anyway. After
all there are many things that due to the laws of nature we are inherently
incapable of ever knowing such as what is beyond knowable universe (nothing
can travel faster than speed of light so we cannot learn about it since the
knowledge or light from stuff beyond the knowable universe won't have enough
time to ever reach us.)

~~~
swebs
Man, I should really stop bothering to read comments that start off
complaining about capitalism in completely unrelated threads.

