Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/News from the WMF

I am excited for the inevitable future in which we have no visitors because Google siphoned them off to their Knowledge Graph that nobody understands is from Wikipedia while Amazon/Apple/etc reads our stuff with no vocal attribution. It will be even better when we have no editors who legitimately care about our content, as those that take pride in what they have created realize nobody has ever heard of what they do. The point in time where Abstract Wikipedia powers knowledge graphs for much of South Asia's native languages but has 30% brand awareness or less will be shocking. If I wanted to work as a Google contractor I would join the Fellowship of Friends and get paid for my effort. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * +1.
 * Note that this issue of the Signpost has more on Wikimedia Enterprise, Abstract Wikipedia and Google in News and notes. Andreas JN 466 07:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * What will the WMF do when Google or Facebook take issue with content on the encyclopedia, and threaten to withdraw their enterprise contracts unless said content is removed? This seems like a recipe for disaster, and it's not even a necessary one considering how much excess money the WMF makes already.om this source Rabbitflyer (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * For just this reason Enterprise has promised that it will not raise more than 30% of WMF's annual total from this source. Wikimedia_Enterprise/FAQ    Since there is only one customer now, google, it might be a shock, if google ever said "do xyz or we'll cut off 30% of your revenue" but I'm sure the WMF board will have the guts to say "take a hike". More realistically Enterprise will develop a diversified customer base - say 5 companies paying from 15-30% of Enterprise's revenue, or maybe 10 companies with the largest accounting for only 20% of their revenue. That would make google's possible threat to be only pulling 30% of 30% = 9% of WMF's revenue or 6% in the 2nd case. That would make it really easy for the WMF to say  "Don't forget your hat your hat on the way out!" Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They can also cut off their support for Abstract Wikipedia, which is primarily staffed by "former" Google operatives. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 01:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Denny (who I assume is who you're referring to) spent at least 8 years as an active Wikimedian pushing the data centralizing/structuring stuff (including founding Wikidata) before he went to work for Google for some years. I don't think it's reasonable to say that he's currently secretly working on their behalf. --Yair rand (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, Wikidata powers the Knowledge Graph as Google outsourced Freebase to us. If there's one project that's customized to Google's interests more than any other it's Wikidata. Second of all, Google is deeply involved with more than just one staffperson. See Abstract Wikipedia/Updates/2022-04-12; Google just seconded "up to 10" fellows over to develop the backend. Keeping in mind that the Abstract Wikipedia team on its own is only 10 people including Denny, Google withdrawing their support would cause issues to say the least. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 05:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You make some hard-hitting points. I am of two minds about it; on the one hand I'd say that the WMF has found a way to create a two-tiered system: a "basic" access for free (regular wiki access), and a "premium" access for a cost (Enterprise), which feels anathema to the spirit of Wikipedia. Moreover, as you suggest, in time fee-paying "premium" customers may have undue influence in the direction of the wiki projects. On this front I support ideas to limit or actually to make Enterprise free of use, so that WMF relies only on donations (of money and labor). If Enterprise requires lots of resources, Google et al. can donate engineers' time.
 * On the other hand, Wikipedia is so free (CC SA 3.0) that anyone is free to even use it for commercial purposes. That copyleft is also part of Wikipedia's ethos.
 * Further, I assume that if Wikimedia Enterprise did not exist within the WMF, some other entrepreneurial business could create something similar to Enterprise and mine the data from Wikipedia and channel it to outside platforms. At least by the WMF creating such a service inhouse, they can better control the terms of use... Thank you for making me think more about it. I think the WMF should proceed with caution. Al83tito (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Already looking forward to a follow-up piece on this! FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)