That would be a better one yes. It was just a bad comparison of fake valuation to real.

But I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Wikipedia is offering good value for money, just that some people might be justifying that to excessively compensate themselves for an operation that requires very little to run and depends almost entirely on unpaid volunteers.

"well, our service is a boon to mankind, therefore it warrants skimming a bit off the top"

And that could be a problem in the long run.