And Wikpedia got the 2 billion words with zero paid editors, and indeed a culture that is suspicious of financial motivations, which is a big reason why the Foundation/community doesn't seem to have any interest in paid editors.
But if they thought they could use them, it doesn't follow that they'd need a staff of a thousand-plus. It depends on the (unstated, entirely-hypothetical) strategy for using them. Superficial word-count-output extrapolations wouldn't be part of such a strategy.
They've got plenty of money (provided each year's donation campaign meets its goals). They've got plenty of words. There's just not a clear path where "if they just had enough funding from some modern Andrew Carnegie" they could throw paid editors at their mission and improve things. (That was the particular suggestion that started this tangent about whether they need more money or not.)
Other tangential evidence: while the Foundation reaches its fundraising target each year, they often spend less than planned. See for example:
But if they thought they could use them, it doesn't follow that they'd need a staff of a thousand-plus. It depends on the (unstated, entirely-hypothetical) strategy for using them. Superficial word-count-output extrapolations wouldn't be part of such a strategy.
They've got plenty of money (provided each year's donation campaign meets its goals). They've got plenty of words. There's just not a clear path where "if they just had enough funding from some modern Andrew Carnegie" they could throw paid editors at their mission and improve things. (That was the particular suggestion that started this tangent about whether they need more money or not.)
Other tangential evidence: while the Foundation reaches its fundraising target each year, they often spend less than planned. See for example:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Q...