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 m

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.