Argh. As a Wikipedia supporter this grinds my goat, if I can maul two expressions at once. On the other hand, reading the article I see that AI is scrubbing Wikipedia already and it’s driving up costs. What wiki is doing is creating a model where AI companies will pay them for what they’re currently doing anyway.
I don’t like it, but until they can be blocked or otherwise prevented from access, at least wikimedia should get something out of it. However I fear that this will lead to dependency on AI money, and that, that’s not good.
Anyhow, not only is AI scraping (not scrubbing, that’s something completely different) Wikipedia, the Wikipedia licenses allow the AI companies to use the materials. Wikipedia content is licensed CC BY-SA or GFDL. So, while Wikipedia could try to block the scrapers, they can’t block the companies from using the content as long as they comply with those (very open) licenses. And, really, this is part of how I want Wikipedia to be used. Not necessarily to train up chatbots, but I want it to be a freely available, freely usable source of knowledge for the world. I like it that it isn’t knowledge that’s hidden behind some firewall. And, if chatbots are going to be trained on the contents of the Internet, at least we know that some of the training data will be good, factual knowledge, not memes, lies, propaganda, etc.
So, while I’m not happy with anything where data is being sold to the AI companies, in this case I’ll try to get over my knee-jerk reaction and see it as a good thing. Wikipedia gets paid for something that was already freely available, and maybe the jazzed-up autocomplete will more frequently autocomplete from a good source.
Wikipedia already has hundreds of millions, they’re not hurting for cash despite the ads. I’ve stopped donating to them, because the money is only going to Jimmy Wales and not to the actual hard working volunteers who make Wikipedia the great resource it is.
everyone getting paid by wiki media (especially the ex US ambassador, jimmy wales and other top level executives) will always be looking for a bigger cut.
non-profit is a label that must be untwisted in todays lexicon.
Looks like $4-5M out of their $178M expenses goes to execs. $300-400k salaries with no stock doesn’t seem that egregious for an exec. Jimmy Wales is not paid.
Argh. As a Wikipedia supporter this grinds my goat, if I can maul two expressions at once. On the other hand, reading the article I see that AI is scrubbing Wikipedia already and it’s driving up costs. What wiki is doing is creating a model where AI companies will pay them for what they’re currently doing anyway.
I don’t like it, but until they can be blocked or otherwise prevented from access, at least wikimedia should get something out of it. However I fear that this will lead to dependency on AI money, and that, that’s not good.
Um… it does what?
Anyhow, not only is AI scraping (not scrubbing, that’s something completely different) Wikipedia, the Wikipedia licenses allow the AI companies to use the materials. Wikipedia content is licensed CC BY-SA or GFDL. So, while Wikipedia could try to block the scrapers, they can’t block the companies from using the content as long as they comply with those (very open) licenses. And, really, this is part of how I want Wikipedia to be used. Not necessarily to train up chatbots, but I want it to be a freely available, freely usable source of knowledge for the world. I like it that it isn’t knowledge that’s hidden behind some firewall. And, if chatbots are going to be trained on the contents of the Internet, at least we know that some of the training data will be good, factual knowledge, not memes, lies, propaganda, etc.
So, while I’m not happy with anything where data is being sold to the AI companies, in this case I’ll try to get over my knee-jerk reaction and see it as a good thing. Wikipedia gets paid for something that was already freely available, and maybe the jazzed-up autocomplete will more frequently autocomplete from a good source.
That is a reasonable and sound response. I also concur.
Wikipedia already has hundreds of millions, they’re not hurting for cash despite the ads. I’ve stopped donating to them, because the money is only going to Jimmy Wales and not to the actual hard working volunteers who make Wikipedia the great resource it is.
Isn’t Wikipedia a nonprofit?
sure the corporation is a non-profit entity.
everyone getting paid by wiki media (especially the ex US ambassador, jimmy wales and other top level executives) will always be looking for a bigger cut.
non-profit is a label that must be untwisted in todays lexicon.
Looks like $4-5M out of their $178M expenses goes to execs. $300-400k salaries with no stock doesn’t seem that egregious for an exec. Jimmy Wales is not paid.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200049703
Now I want goat meat.
Kebabs sound really good.