|
|
Relevant New Developments[edit]
- https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-finally-asking-big-tech-to-pay-up/
- https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/
Potentially relevant to @Guy Macon's thesis.
SpurriousCorrelation 10:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! The camel's nose comes to mind...
- Wikipedia Is Finally Asking Big Tech to Pay Up --Wired
- Report: Wikimedia Foundation is Announcing the Launch of a Commerical Product, Wikimedia Enterprise --Library Journal
- Wikimedia will launch a paid service for big tech companies --The Verge
- Big tech companies may soon have to pay for Wikipedia content --TechRadar
- Apple might soon pay for Wikipedia content --Apple Insider
- Wikipedia wants to charge Google, Amazon, and Apple for using its content --Mashable
- Wikimedia Enterprise Seeks to Turn Big Tech Into Paying Customers --WebProNews
- Wikipedia will not be free for tech-giants anymore, launches Wikimedia Enterprise --TechStory
- Wikimedia Enterprise Seeks to Turn Big Tech Into Paying Customers --Tech Investor News
- Wikimedia Enterprise on Meta Wiki
- Wikimedia Enterprise on Meta Wiki...redirects are so old school. Here at W?F we prefer to have two identical pages that update at different times -- until someone forgets to do the manual update. And BTW, the duplicate page doesn't have a talk page. :(
- Wikimedia Enterprise on Wikimedia Dfff...because the software the W?F makes Wikipedia use isn't good enough for the W?F.
- Wikimedia Enterprise/FAQ
- Wikimedia Enterprise/Essay
- Wikimedia Enterprise sign up page
- Wikimedia Enterprise API
- Discussion on Wikimedia Forum
- Hacker News thread
- Reddit thread
- So, my loyal
minionssycophantsfanboishenchmentalk page stalkerstalk page watchers, how should I cover this? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- One point that is implied but not easily said out loud is that the general internet-connected public doesn't really know about or care about Wikimedia. They see this amazing Wikipedia project, and that's the end of their journey. WMF is using dark patterns in fundraising, and now APIs, to exploit this, by implying that its about the survival of the project, dammit. Two immediate concerns about the API: 1, it converts companies relying on WP for its source of knowledge into customers, who will therefore have leverage over WMF. WMF may not promise anything, they may explicitly say that using the service does not mean any guarantees of <thing>, but the economic principle is unavoidable. 2, by having a commercial offering, WMF is now always incentivized to keep the "free" product worse. Yes, there may be an official policy to not do this, but it doesn't sit well to rely on what is basically a poster on a wall that says, "remember: it is against policy to do what you feel pressured to do".SpurriousCorrelation 01:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, and along with the Camel's nose metaphor, this fits under the concept of Creeping normality, which is how I see this being made palatable to project contributors. SpurriousCorrelation 01:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Accountability[edit]
Any donor should be seriously concerned about the noted refusals for financial accounting. The scenario of bankrupcy and acquisition by a mega-corporation is gravely disturbing. Exactly the fate of Mountain Equipment Coop, started in Vancouver by a group of outdoor enthusiasts. For several decades a wonderful success. Then it began to grow like a mushroom, opening stores across the country. Opposition to the growth encountered stonewalling. =8~| No problem for a few years. =8~| Then the economy shifted. MEC became bankrupt and was forced to sell assets to a private interest. I really don't want Wikimedia to fall to the same fate but, without accountability, that might be inevitable. =8~( Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Guy includes the alternative title: "Just because you have some money, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it."
The parallelism to a well known quotation of Niklaus Wirth is striking: "... we do not consider it as good engineering practice to consume a resource lavishly just because it happens to be cheap."
The fundamental question: is a resource-money in this discussion-used wisely? Of all organizations, Wikimedia should have the ability to use resources wisely. Will that ability be exercised?
Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)