Wikimedia Enterprise AP v 230

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Wikimedia Enterprise AP v 230

Post by wexter » Sat Jun 11, 2022 1:33 pm

The tendency is to go further into Wikipedia integration into big tech; then it would be to reign in big tech via Section 230.


https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Enterprise

Looks like the keys to the "free data" can be found for the low sum of $25,000 or $50,000 per year; as a for profit product from WMF.
Even "Vandalism" metadata has value.

https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/pricing/

Wikipedia being totally-integrated into "big tech;" the whole system will work until it becomes irrelevant. What I mean by "irrelevant" relates to the macro reality in that there are some tough times ahead. As an example of irrelevance, At 10% annualized inflation, folks may use Wikipedia and Google for entertainment but that's not going to let them keep fed, housed, and solvent when driving to work costs them $5 in change.

We are at a, "let them eat cake" moment in time; and Wikipedia is just "bread and circuses."
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
Daniel Brandt
Sucks
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 11:14 pm
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Wikimedia Enterprise AP v 230

Post by Daniel Brandt » Sat Jun 11, 2022 6:37 pm

I tried to figure out what Wikimedia Enterprise was all about, but the only thing that made a little bit of sense to me was a year-old essay on the topic:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... rise/Essay

Now I understand it a little bit better, but it still seems weird to me.

User avatar
Daniel Brandt
Sucks
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 11:14 pm
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Wikimedia Enterprise AP v 230

Post by Daniel Brandt » Sat Jun 11, 2022 7:39 pm

After re-reading that essay, I think Wikimedia wants access to potential new sources of revenue from the commercial sector. At the same time, the donations from current "little" donors would remain tax-deductible as long as Section 230 survives. From an accounting perspective, the two sources of revenue could be difficult to distinguish if you hire lawyers who specialize in obfuscation. And if it's obfuscation that's required, I'd say that the Wikimedia Foundation if off to an excellent start on this new project.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Wikimedia Enterprise AP v 230

Post by wexter » Sat Jun 11, 2022 9:36 pm

After re-reading that essay, I think Wikimedia wants access to potential new sources of revenue from the commercial sector.

I think it is a for-profit "revenue scheme"
--It seeks to build an "application interface" as a retrofit to mine into a data structure, and meta data, never designed to be queried in detail. They are trying to use a hammer as a screwdriver, because that is the tool they used!- wiki in big SQL fields?
--the "mission" might even conflict with the bizarre copyright terms of Wikipedia, which claims that "editors" own rights to their edits
--one of the hires is a "wonk" from a prior administration

To me it reads like;

All these big companies, Google and Amazon, are making lots of free money on the back of Wikipedia therefore its our turn to monitor our content.

Wikipedia does not own its own data!; the WMF has no claim to Wikipedia data;

-"You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia."
-"The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts or illustrations"
-Then there are provisions that the data is for non-profit use

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

It's a classic technology company "end run" around existing law. If you developed your own API against Wikipedia and then sold the tool or the data-result; you would be dragged into a court ASAP.

These guys are just Pernicious
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikimedia Enterprise AP v 230

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Jun 11, 2022 11:42 pm

On one hand, they are risking their nonprofit status by pulling this bit. On the other hand, the IRS is doing a terrible job of policing nonprofits that decide to chase "business" in this manner. So it's likely they will get away with a lot of outright abuse.

Wasn't there some talk on Wikipedia Review more than 10 years ago, of trying to get the IRS to re-examine the WMF's form 990, because of their incredibly sloppy bookkeeping? That was just after the Carolyn Doran scandal and Brad Patrick's exit--when Jimbo still thought he was "in charge". And blinding stupidity in the WMF office was a nigh-daily occurrence. Sue Gardner probably saved their asses by taking over and showing them how to raise funds and keep books.

Also, that essay is complete self-serving drivel. Something the Scientologists would write. Perhaps they are trying to think of a sneaky way to bill Google and other search engines for their "services".

This speaks volumes.
It is also critical to realize that the small donation model is partially dependent on desktop and mobile traffic. Even as global access to the internet continues to grow, Wikimedia readership has remained effectively static for the last several years. One of the biggest changes is that an increasingly significant proportion of interactions with Wikimedia content is no longer on the Wikimedia websites themselves.
Yeah, you have a problem, you nits. And I fully expect you will fail to solve it. Do I really need to post my old charts showing Wikipedia's decline again?

Who wrote that essay? Why, longtime Wikipedia insider Joe Seddon, of course. A reliable fanboy-propagandist. Also one of the few who doesn't have a long, ugly and toxic history of power abuse.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=21228227

User avatar
Daniel Brandt
Sucks
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 11:14 pm
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Wikimedia Enterprise AP v 230

Post by Daniel Brandt » Sun Jun 12, 2022 4:20 pm

Speaking of the Wikimedia Foundation, there's a book that I should buy and read:

https://books.google.com/books/about/We ... -XzgEACAAJ

A year ago I mentioned Katherine Maher in this forum, who was then the top person in the Wikimedia Foundation. She is affiliated with the CIA's National Endowment for Democracy. Any moves by the WMF to expand its influence should be watched carefully. Too bad we can't trust anything WMF says about their funding!

More about this book:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/25 ... t-emerged/

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikimedia Enterprise AP v 230

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:01 pm

Daniel Brandt wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 4:20 pm
More about this book:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/25 ... t-emerged/
Well, well. I had not heard of that book. Must be self-published. There is NO mention of Coles or any of his writings on Wikipedia. I suppose there will be IRC rants like, "don't mention any of this, and now we have to attack Counterpunch for becoming a "right wing conspiracy site"". The idiots have tried that before.....

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikimedia Enterprise AP v 230

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:02 pm

Look at the history of the Counterpunch WP article. It shows a lot of brutal squabbling and editwarring since 2005. Mostly over constant attempts to attack Counterpunch for running articles by "questionable people". Ten years ago it was twice as long as today. Including some looney claims/rants that the site is run by "Holocaust deniers" because it published criticisms of Israel in the past. Cirt sockpuppets are everywhere in this pile-on. Just another bad article resulting from a ruinous Wiki shitshow. Nothing to see, move on.

Who is this, a Counterpunch employee? He removed most of the attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... cottyhines
Look at his talkpage. There's Cirt, screaming at him. How bloody predictable. I just KNEW that Cirt was behind a lot of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scottyhines

also, I thought this part was amusing--a subtle historical joke? Shortly after Smith made this comment, he was arrested for "inciting a riot" and "treason" and then shot to death by an angry mob. 'Murica!
Just as Woodrow Wilson said that most nations don’t need direct rule, merely the inculcation of elite US “values” where possible, the officer who contributed to the Galileo report includes an anecdote about the 19th century Mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois, who said that he kept the massive frontier city in good order because he taught the inhabitants the “correct principles and they govern themselves.” The Mayor was Joseph Smith (1805-44), founder of Mormonism.
Perhaps Mr. Coles should have a copy of the book wiki. He apparently self-published this book and I know damn well why---no "established publisher" would touch it. Looks as if he's discovered some of the same conclusions Ed and I reached anyway.

User avatar
Daniel Brandt
Sucks
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 11:14 pm
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Wikimedia Enterprise AP v 230

Post by Daniel Brandt » Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:53 pm


User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikimedia Enterprise AP v 230

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Jun 13, 2022 12:59 am

Compare the language. One is “funded in whole or in part by the Russian government,” the other is “a public broadcast service.” By implication, Russia is bad and Britain is good.

A truly neutral organisation would state that both RT and the BBC are state-funded propaganda machines. But Wikipedia is primarily a US entity and Russia is the enemy of the US.
And Jimbo Wales is now a UK citizen. Mr. Coles has some things to learn about Wikipedia's history.

Post Reply