You've probably seen those banner ads. Jimmy Wales staring at you with a mix of exhaustion and hope, asking for three bucks so he doesn't have to put a "buy now" button on the entry for the Roman Empire. Most people ignore them. Some give. But every few years, a tech mogul or a hedge fund manager looks at the traffic stats for the world’s most visited encyclopedia and thinks, "Man, I could monetize the hell out of that."
The truth? They can't. Not now, and basically not ever.
📖 Related: 6.5 in to mm: Why This Specific Measurement Pops Up Everywhere
The reason Wikipedia still can’t be sold isn't just because the people running it are idealistic—though they certainly are. It is because the site is wrapped in a legal and structural suit of armor that makes a traditional acquisition practically impossible. It’s a non-profit setup that would make a corporate lawyer weep.
The Legal Fortress of the Wikimedia Foundation
To understand why a billionaire can't just write a check to buy the site, you have to look at how the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is built. It is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. In the United States, that isn't just a tax status. It is a set of handcuffs.
Assets held by a non-profit are legally bound to its mission. If Jimmy Wales or the Board of Trustees suddenly decided they wanted to buy a fleet of yachts and tried to sell the "Wikipedia" brand and domain to Google or a private equity firm, the Attorney General of California would be at their door before the ink dried. Under non-profit law, you can't just "sell" the entity to a for-profit buyer and pocket the cash. That’s called "private inurement," and it’s a fast track to a jail cell or, at the very least, a massive lawsuit that would void the sale.
Then there is the content itself.
Even if you bought the servers, you wouldn't "own" the words. Every single one of the millions of articles on the site is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This is the ultimate poison pill for a corporate takeover. If a company bought Wikipedia and tried to put it behind a paywall, anyone—literally anyone—could legally scrape the entire database and re-host it on a new site called "Ourpedia" for free.
The license stays with the content forever. You can't "un-license" it. This means the market value of the data is essentially zero because the data is already public property. You'd be buying a brand that you can't control and a database that your competitors can copy for the price of a hard drive.
Why the "Wealthiest Site on Earth" is Technically Broke
If you look at the WMF’s financial reports, they have a decent amount of money in the bank. We’re talking about an endowment that has crossed the $100 million mark. Compared to Facebook or Apple, that is pocket change. It’s barely enough to keep the lights on for a few years if the donations stopped tomorrow.
The foundation's "wealth" is entirely tied to public trust.
The moment the site looks like it’s being prepped for a sale, the volunteer community—the people who actually write the articles—would quit. This is the "human capital" problem. Wikipedia has no employees who write content. It has thousands of dedicated volunteers like "User:GerardW" or "User:Whispy" who spend their Saturday nights citing sources on obscure 19th-century poets.
If Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg bought the site, these volunteers would vanish. The site would become a graveyard of outdated information and spam within months. You can't buy a community. You especially can't buy a community that hates the idea of being bought.
The Ghost of the "Spanish Fork"
There is a historical precedent for this. It’s why the WMF exists in the first place. Back in 2002, Wikipedia was still part of a for-profit company called Bomis, owned by Jimmy Wales. The volunteers at the Spanish Wikipedia got nervous. They saw hints that Bomis might introduce advertising.
They didn't just complain. They revolted.
They moved all their content to a new server at the University of Seville and created Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español. This "forking" of the project terrified the founders. It proved that the community held all the power. To stop a total collapse, Wales moved the assets into the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation in 2003.
Since then, the "forking" threat has been the primary reason Wikipedia still can’t be sold. The software is open source (MediaWiki). The content is free. The editors are volunteers. A buyer would be purchasing a hollow shell.
The Endowment and the Long Game
Some critics point to the Wikimedia Endowment as a sign of "corporate" creep. They argue that the foundation is hoarding too much cash. But the WMF argues this is the only way to ensure the site stays independent forever.
By building a massive fund, they can eventually live off the interest. This would mean no more "banner ads with Jimmy's face." It would also mean they never have to look for a "strategic partner" (which is corporate-speak for a buyer).
- The endowment is managed by Tides Foundation.
- It is designed to be a permanent "rainy day" fund.
- It protects against government censorship or legal attacks.
There is a weird tension here. The more money they have, the less they need a buyer. The less they need a buyer, the more they can ignore the market. It’s a self-sustaining cycle of independence that is almost unique in the modern internet.
What Happens if They Try?
Let's play out a "what if" scenario. Suppose the board decides to sell the domain wikipedia.org to a major search engine for $5 billion.
- Legal Injunctions: Groups of donors would sue immediately, claiming the sale violates the "charitable trust" under which the donations were given.
- The Great Migration: Within 24 hours, a "clean" copy of Wikipedia would be hosted at a new domain (maybe
the-wiki.org). - SEO Collapse: Google and other search engines rely on Wikipedia for their "Knowledge Panels." If they bought the site and ruined it, they would be destroying the very data source they use to make their own search results useful.
It is a "Mutually Assured Destruction" scenario. The value of Wikipedia is its neutrality. Once it’s owned by a corporation, it loses that neutrality. Once it loses neutrality, it loses the editors. Once it loses the editors, it loses the value.
The math never works out for a buyer.
The Governance Problem
Even if you had the money and the legal bypasses, who would you even talk to? The Wikimedia Foundation has a Board of Trustees, but they are increasingly beholden to the Global Council and various regional chapters. It is a messy, sprawling democracy.
🔗 Read more: GNU Lesser General Public License: Why Developers Still Get It Wrong
Imagine trying to get a thousand "Wikipedians" to agree on a sale price. These are people who will spend three weeks arguing over whether a comma should be inside or outside of quotation marks in an article about a type of moss. They are not the type of people who "do lunch" to discuss acquisition synergies.
Actionable Takeaways for the Curious
If you're worried about the future of the free internet, or if you're just wondering why that banner is still there, keep these points in mind:
- Check the Licensing: If you ever see a site using Wikipedia data for profit, remember that they must allow you to use their modified data for free too. That’s the "ShareAlike" rule.
- Watch the Endowment: The growth of the Wikimedia Endowment is the true metric of the site’s survival. Once it hits a certain threshold, the foundation becomes virtually untouchable.
- Monitor "Forking" News: If you ever see the volunteer community start talking about a "hard fork," that is the signal that the foundation has overstepped. That’s the community’s ultimate "veto" power.
- Verify the Taxes: You can look up the WMF's Form 990 filings any time. It's public record. You can see exactly how much the executives get paid and where the donation money goes. Transparency is their biggest defense against a hostile takeover.
The fact that Wikipedia still can’t be sold is probably the most successful "glitch" in the history of capitalism. It’s a multi-billion dollar asset that effectively belongs to nobody—and therefore belongs to everyone. Keeping it that way requires a weird mix of legal rigidity, volunteer stubbornness, and constant, annoying fundraising. But so far, it’s working.