4 ms·

Another obvious question: does Google pay for the valuable free content they get from Wikipedia?

fheld 6y ago
Not an answer but a data point: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-million-to-wikipedias-parent-org/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-milli...
- dspillett 6y ago
  Any chance of a summary for those who refuse to play TC/Yahoo's privacy game (which last time I did look in more depth made it pretty much impossible to completely opt out of tracking) beyond seeing the interstitial and hitting back?
  - nine_k 6y ago
    Does an incognito browser window help?
  - nieve 6y ago
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200701160058/https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-million-to-wikipedias-parent-org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200701160058/https://techcrunc... I find the Resurrect Pages firefox extension very useful for a lot of paywalls.
dspillett 6y ago
No, not directly, though they have donated to the relevant foundation, but in any case that isn't quite the same thing. The use of Wikipedia's information in search results is generally useful to the user. Pinterest's spamming of search results can harm the user experience, making it harder to find content that is hosted elsewhere. Often the content elsewhere is better than that found on Pinterest because it is more likely to be the original source (or at least cite the original).
blinding-streak 6y ago
"The licenses Wikipedia uses grant free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement; see below for more details). Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under an appropriate license and can continue to be used by anyone subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
- not2b 6y ago
  Besides, Wikipedia isn't an ad-supported site, so Google's practice of including their text in the search result doesn't cost them ad revenue. You could argue that it means people will see the banner requesting donations less often, but that's compensated for by Google's own donations to them. So while I have definite concerns about some of Google's other practices, that one is no big deal.
nine_k 6y ago
Wikipedia is expressly marking its content as free, and is interested in disseminating it. I'm not sure that Pinterest's mission is the same.
ballenf 6y ago
Does wikipedia pay its users who contribute the content?

Not an answer but a data point: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-million-to-wikipedias-parent-org/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-milli...

dspillett 6y ago
Any chance of a summary for those who refuse to play TC/Yahoo's privacy game (which last time I did look in more depth made it pretty much impossible to completely opt out of tracking) beyond seeing the interstitial and hitting back?
- nine_k 6y ago
  Does an incognito browser window help?
- nieve 6y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20200701160058/https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-million-to-wikipedias-parent-org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200701160058/https://techcrunc... I find the Resurrect Pages firefox extension very useful for a lot of paywalls.

dspillett 6y ago

No, not directly, though they have donated to the relevant foundation, but in any case that isn't quite the same thing. The use of Wikipedia's information in search results is generally useful to the user. Pinterest's spamming of search results can harm the user experience, making it harder to find content that is hosted elsewhere. Often the content elsewhere is better than that found on Pinterest because it is more likely to be the original source (or at least cite the original).

blinding-streak 6y ago

"The licenses Wikipedia uses grant free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement; see below for more details). Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under an appropriate license and can continue to be used by anyone subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

not2b 6y ago
Besides, Wikipedia isn't an ad-supported site, so Google's practice of including their text in the search result doesn't cost them ad revenue. You could argue that it means people will see the banner requesting donations less often, but that's compensated for by Google's own donations to them. So while I have definite concerns about some of Google's other practices, that one is no big deal.

nine_k 6y ago

Wikipedia is expressly marking its content as free, and is interested in disseminating it. I'm not sure that Pinterest's mission is the same.

ballenf 6y ago

Does wikipedia pay its users who contribute the content?