3 ms·

There's a whole statement-of-principles thing that at least implies that the intention isn't to cannibalize the existing offerings: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w

by kemayo 2y ago

There's a whole statement-of-principles thing that at least implies that the intention isn't to cannibalize the existing offerings: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Enterprise/Principles https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Enterprise/Princip... Though I imagine that only works so far as you feel you can trust the Foundation to stick to those principles, so that's complicated. :D There's also a bunch of FAQs here that sort of get at how the funding streams are supposed to integrate into the existing structures and how it's supposed to avoid pushing out the free services: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Enterprise/FAQ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Enterprise/FAQ (As I said elsewhere, I work for the WMF but I don't work on anything related to this so I'm just commenting as someone who has more experience searching through our public info than most HN commenters would...)

bawolff 2y ago
> Though I imagine that only works so far as you feel you can trust the Foundation to stick to those principles, so that's complicated. :D At the end of the day, WMF is made up of people, and people follow incentives. I'm not saying they are bad people, but they aren't saints either. They are just people like anyone else. It might not happen today, but 5 or 10 years from now, i'm not so sure. Eventually there will be some situation where people involved will have to chose between something for the public good vs something that sells enterprise APIs better. If WMF becomes dependent on the enterprise money, it will be hard to chose the public good. When that day comes, the enshitification begins. After all, google once claimed not to be evil. The motto didn't last.