5 ms·

Looking forward to seeing the details on how they will handle revenue sharing with all of the people who contribute to them.

riku_iki 2y ago
are they obligated?..
- cdme 2y ago
  No, but nobody is obligated to contribute to or support them either.
  - riku_iki 2y ago
    that's not really true. Because of network capture, those who wants to contribute into some public free human knowledge, obligated to do it through wikimedia and contribute to wikimedia revenue streams.
    - cdme 2y ago
      Or this simply discourages contributions for folks not wanting to volunteer effort to the gaping maw of yet another monolithic content vacuum/LLM.
paxys 2y ago
If you want monetary compensation you should not be contributing to Wikipedia. Otherwise apply to work there as an employee.
- tux3 2y ago
  After seeing this comment, onlookers report that the Wikimedia Foundation appears to have just vanished in a puff of volunteerism
  - philipwhiuk 2y ago
    The Wikimedia Foundation are paid employees.
    - tux3 2y ago
      They sure are! I think the parent comment to mine was edited, and now my reply looks weird. This is what I remember replying to: "If you want monetary compensation you should not be contributing to Wikipedia"
carlosjobim 2y ago
Probably the same ways as billion dollar businesses share revenue with open source developers...
gurchik 2y ago
Funding that goes to editors (for example, stipends to travel to Wikipedia conferences) has been decreasing steadily each year. It's not due to a lack of money - Wikimedia consistently brings in millions of surplus revenue each year, see WP:CANCER[1] - so it's not clear that an additional revenue source will change anything. ^1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
kmeisthax 2y ago
The details are: none. There is no revenue sharing. That's literally the point of the Creative Commons license that Wikipedia uses. There's some things on the margins about attribution strings and share-alike requirements, but none of it would render AI training on Wikipedia illegal or compel AI companies to seek a separate, royalty-bearing license. Creative Commons is a "do what you wish" license, not a "free until I want money, then I rugpull you" license. If you wanted revenue sharing, you were at the wrong party. You wanted the Microsoft-sponsored "Open Source is Communism" party down the block.

riku_iki 2y ago

are they obligated?..

cdme 2y ago
No, but nobody is obligated to contribute to or support them either.
- riku_iki 2y ago
  that's not really true. Because of network capture, those who wants to contribute into some public free human knowledge, obligated to do it through wikimedia and contribute to wikimedia revenue streams.
  - cdme 2y ago
    Or this simply discourages contributions for folks not wanting to volunteer effort to the gaping maw of yet another monolithic content vacuum/LLM.

paxys 2y ago

If you want monetary compensation you should not be contributing to Wikipedia. Otherwise apply to work there as an employee.

tux3 2y ago
After seeing this comment, onlookers report that the Wikimedia Foundation appears to have just vanished in a puff of volunteerism
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  The Wikimedia Foundation are paid employees.
  - tux3 2y ago
    They sure are! I think the parent comment to mine was edited, and now my reply looks weird. This is what I remember replying to: "If you want monetary compensation you should not be contributing to Wikipedia"

carlosjobim 2y ago

Probably the same ways as billion dollar businesses share revenue with open source developers...

gurchik 2y ago

Funding that goes to editors (for example, stipends to travel to Wikipedia conferences) has been decreasing steadily each year. It's not due to a lack of money - Wikimedia consistently brings in millions of surplus revenue each year, see WP:CANCER[1] - so it's not clear that an additional revenue source will change anything. ^1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...

kmeisthax 2y ago

The details are: none. There is no revenue sharing. That's literally the point of the Creative Commons license that Wikipedia uses. There's some things on the margins about attribution strings and share-alike requirements, but none of it would render AI training on Wikipedia illegal or compel AI companies to seek a separate, royalty-bearing license. Creative Commons is a "do what you wish" license, not a "free until I want money, then I rugpull you" license. If you wanted revenue sharing, you were at the wrong party. You wanted the Microsoft-sponsored "Open Source is Communism" party down the block.