QUOTE(Lar @ Sat 19th December 2009, 1:50am)
I think this is one of those things where you crank the variable values into a formula and an answer pops out... even if the formula doesn't actually apply.
The domain might be worth 400M according to the formula, but you couldn't sell it for that. IMHO anyway. Not because someone wouldn't pay, but because no one exists that could execute the sale.
Let me direct your attention to YouTube. What is Youtube? A site that relies on largely anonymous people to create and contribute content in return (in most cases) for nothing and then on other people to want to consume the content thus created. Sound like anything else you know? Google, of course, paid $1.65 billion for YouTube back in 2006 and at the time YouTube had almost no revenue. Since then, Google has, by all indications, found ways to make the investment pay off.
The general model in the Tech industry for years has been, try to beat 'em, then if you can't buy 'em. Google tried, and failed to beat Wikipedia with Knol. I have no doubt that if it were possible to sell Wikipedia (the whole non-profit thing creates issues that I'm not entirely informed on, so I'm not even sure if you could sell it), you could find a buyer for well north of $400m. I think Google would be willing to offer $1bn at least. It's an incredibly valuable web property, and not just because it gets lots of eyeballs. It would also be very easy to target ads on Wikipedia. Can you imagine what law firms would pay to advertise on top of the Wikipedia article on
mesothelioma? Not to mention all of the other possible revenue streams.
Would some members of the "community" rebel at a Google takeover? Yes. Would that matter in the slightest? No. Frankly, I also think, with all due respect to the viewpoint of certain members here, that a Wikipedia run by Google would be a better place.