Wholesale 'archiving' (copying) of websites seems like a pretty gray area to play in. Of course, it's ridiculously important that someone does it, too. However, I suspect that a big reason they get away with it is that they're a not-for-profit organization.

Perhaps I'm not bold enough, but I'd be hesitant to try to 'monetize' the simple re-publication of other people's content.

Really? You "marvel" that Wikipedia doesn't charge for access? I hope I never become as "business cynical" as some people here.

"You "marvel" that Wikipedia doesn't charge for access?"

I'm not talking about Wikipedia nor did I mention them. My comment is directed toward internet archive a different situation.

>I always marvel in a service that could easily monetize their product or traffic but chooses instead to essentially beg for funds.

Describes Wikipedia word-for-word.