:Hmm, it's not just a joke. Perhaps "jokingly stated"? There is a serious point being expressed. One of the biggest "what-if" questions of Wikipedia history is if it would have been so successful had it been a for-profit, ad-supported site, like ventures Bomis before it and Wikia after it. If yes, then "dumbest", if no, then "smartest". Nobody can know for certain, and I've seen reasonable arguments on both sides. I think the article is properly engaging that grand question, and I would be wary of it winding up slanted to the benevolent-millionaire PR narrative.  It's very clear from the historical record ("With the resignation of Larry, there is a much less pressing need for funds.  Therefore, all plans to put advertising of any kind on the wikipedia is called off for now.") that Wikipedia was made a non-profit because at the time, it was thought to have little potential to support itself via advertising. To be fair, who could have predicted back then, what would happen? As the Trader Monthly interview (not me!) has it "Despite all this, Wikipedia, set up as a nonprofit, has not made Wales much direct income. Not yet, anyway. Wikipedia  and how to profit from it  is a kind of puzzle for Wales, one he feels he's finally on the verge of solving. ... \[Wikia\], Wales readily admits, is his effort to take the success  and, indeed, the underlying philosophy  of Wikipedia, and commercialize the hell out of it. "Look, I'm not against making money," he says."