IMO this is an excellent wikipedia article....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_speculation
I searched "domaining" and it brought that article up.
Everyone knows that article could have been mostly about scandal, squatting, etc. Instead, it conveys a generic definition, history, etc.
I think there is a parallel. Epik and all businesses should be portrayed in the same balanced perspective.
I don't have a Wikipedia account (I don't edit there, etc.), although I do read it. I believe that article has gone through many edits, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domain_name_speculation&action=history
and might have been more controversial in the past (I recall some of the domain industry blogs talking about it).
Even now, though, it's debatable Some might construe the term "speculation" to have negative connotations. It's more accurate to call it "Domain name investing", rather than "Domain name speculation", in my opinion.
But, free speech exists, and that free speech extends to Wikipedia too. Unless something is outright false and defamatory,
proven in court, they're allowed to have an editorial position. While they attempt to say they are neutral, CNN says that too, as does FOX News. People will report things the way they want to, and opinions or viewpoints do tend to filter into their coverage.
The very first sentence of that article is imprecise, in my view. It literally says (at present):
Domain name speculation is the practice of identifying and registering or acquiring Internet
domain names as an investment with the intent of selling them later for a profit.
Here's why it's not correct. Someone could buy example.com for $1,000, but then earn annual revenues from it (from domain parking, ads, or other monetization) of $100 per year. After 15 years, monetization of $1,500 would exceed the $1,000 purchase price, and they'd have a positive return on investment over that lifetime. They might never want to sell the domain name. Their goal is to earn
a positive return on investment, and that can happen from the cash flows from the domain name. It's the same for stocks. One could buy a stock for its dividends, to buy and hold it. One need not ever sell it at a profit.
The examples like Sex.com in the article are misleading, because they ignore the fact that those sites were monetized with advertising, and thus the capital gains or losses associated with buying and selling the domain are only a small piece of the puzzle.
i.e. profit (or loss) = (simplistically, ignoring interest rates) (Sales Price - Purchase Price )+ (Cash Flow While Owning The Asset)
You can have the sales price be ZERO, below what the domain name was purchased for, and still yield a "profit", because the cash flow while owning the asset (i.e. from monetization, minus other factors like hosting costs, domain name renewals, etc.) exceeded that purchase cost.
The thing is, Wikipedia doesn't really allow "experts" to edit their articles. They rely on "independent media" (which of course can often be debated!) as sources. And Wikipedia tends to not give any weight to "trade journals" in the domain name industry (who would actually know stuff like the above), so until it actually filters out properly into the "mainstream media", somewhat misleading or imprecise articles can persist.
I'm not going to weigh in on the whole Epik / Molly battle or take sides, but ultimately there is free speech in the USA (where Wikipedia, Epik, Rob and Molly all appear to be based). Unless a court finds an article to be defamatory and orders it struck down (even the negative petition that she claims is false), one has to put up with it, to some degree. That's the uncomfortable price we pay to have that precious right.
