The most realistic but still bleak scenario I can think of is Wikipedia becoming infested with ads. Anything more extreme, we'd see a fork become popular.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
The WMF has no plans to sell out to a commercial outfit like Google or Facebook , but is it actually illegal for them to do so?
See https://money.cnn.com/2008/01/15/smbusiness/non_profit_sale....
While it can be difficult to sell a nonprofit like Wikipedia to someone like Google or Facebook, it isn't impossible.
There are two ways that the commercial entity could get a court to agree with the sale and both of them start with the WMF screwing up so badly that they run out of money and need to either sell of shut down. We are nowhere near that, but it could happen in the future. I have talked this over with people who appear to know the law on this, but I am an engineer, not a lawyer. If a real lawyer replies, please ignore me and listen to them.
There are a couple of things the commercial entity could do to make it more likely to get approval from a court.
They could simply say that they are abandoning all of the federal and state tax exemptions that a nonprofit enjoys. The easy way to do this would be for the wikipedia.org domain to announce the end of wikipedia and tell everyone that they have accounts with the same usernames and passwords on the new wikipedia.google.com site which runs the exact same software and has the exact same content as the now-frozen wikipedia.com version. Add the usual "we don't plan on changing anything; we just want to save the now-failed wikipedia" language.
Or they could create a new, independent nonprofit with the same rules as the WMF has now but with funding by a generous donation from Google and fork the content as above. As above, the key to making this work is the existing Wikipedia running out of money and shutting down.
So, while it isn't going to happen any time soon, it isn't actually illegal.
My experience in trying to donate any amount of time and effort to wikipedia has been nothing but pain and suffering at the hands of extremely possessive "little hitlers" that do everything possible to defend their "turf".
You are suggesting that volunteering at the corporate/entity level is different than volunteering at the wiki level ?
Of course, if the article doesn't exist at all, you risk a war with the deletionists who've decided certain turf shouldn't exist. And occasionally there's a one-two of one user shredding an article as "excessively detailed", then another nominating it for deletion because it lacks content...
But overall, I've found it a more approachable way to contribute than trying to change or extend any article with an opinionated 'owner'. (At this point, I suspect Wikipedia's factual errors are less likely to come from "anyone can edit" than from possessive and mistaken writers actively restoring errors.)
In my experience, some of these "little hitlers" appear to be (controlled by) larger corporate entities in some way, shape or form. When the "turf" becomes profitable for some, it becomes very difficult for others to cut the grass so to speak.
Wikipedia has a great output. In my view they don't need my time and effort. They're doing great now. When I see a message asking to donate money, I do, because I assume they do need that if they're asking for money.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
Re: "Wikipedia has a great output. In my view they don't need my time and effort. They're doing great now." We really need a lot more help here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Typo_Team
"The Wikipedia Typo Team is dedicated to improving the quality of Wikipedia by correcting typos and misspellings. If you see any typos (even minor ones), please correct them. This kind of editing is a never-ending job, so we could use your help! Please consider joining our team. All you need to do is start correcting typos."
Re: "When I see a message asking to donate money, I do, because I assume they do need that if they're asking for money." please read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12...
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wikipedia-fundraising-drive-should...
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9qqds7Z3Ykd9Kdeay/...
http://thewikipedian.net/2016/03/11/modest-proposal-wikimedi...
Or any person with any kind of ideological charge, especially a boogeyman to some group or other.
The problem with Wikipedia is the fanatics with infinite time, which it accumulates because they're the ones who never give up. The other issue is it's inability to actually deal with problematic users, as the moderation doesn't teach the fanatics to be good, it just teaches them to not be so bad they'll be banned.
There are hundreds of thousands of words of meta discussion about whether to use –,—, or - in titles.
This even made its way to Arbcom. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitra...
Pity, I profoundly admire Wikipedia.
Lucky you.
If you had been allowed to edit, your edits would most likely have been reverted so fast as to be confused with an automatic process. New pages would be up for deletion immediately. A swarm of people with far, far more time on their hands than you could ever have would block you every step of the way.
There is this notion that well meaning, knowledgeable individuals can make small, worthwhile contributions to wikipedia and slowly refine the resource as we all chip in our little bit.
This notion is false.
It's a real shame because I would love to contribute time and effort in the way that people think they can contribute to wikipedia.
If you know that your edit is at risk of being reverted, you can argue for it on the talk page beforehand. Then if no one replies, you can just make the edit and mark it as "per talk"/"see talk page". If the other person reverts, you can now argue that they're in the wrong because they didn't provide a constructive objection beforehand.
It's a silly game, but it helps provide clarity when editing contentious topics.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
Re: "Has it become that bad?" No. Not even close. The people who complain about such things are typically newbies who make the mistake of trying to "fix" articles on highly contentious topics with hundreds of edits per day. Just pick a page that hasn't been edited in a while, which is most of them. The history tab tells you how often it gets edited.
(BTW, thanks for disclosing your affiliation always.)
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
Re: "I habitually use a VPN, and Wikipedia does not let me contribute (specifically, edit pages), even if I am logged in."
You can request permission to edit Wikipedia through a VPN.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption
"Editors in good standing whose editing is disrupted by unrelated blocks or firewalls may request IP address block exemption, which allows editing on an otherwise-blocked IP address... If you will be editing using an anonymous proxy, including a VPN service, you must send your request to..."
> An editor with a credible editing record who would be affected by this measure may be exempted from the block at administrative discretion, allowing them to edit uninterrupted through the IP address range block. The conditions for granting this are that: the editor's normal (non-proxy) IP address will be disrupted by an IP address block placed on a range they usually edit on, through no fault of theirs.
My highlights. At any rate, I'm not going to invest more time and work into being allowed to contribute to Wikipedia.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/ipblock-exem...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption
EDIT to add: Discussion of that (IMHO silly) policy here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exempt...
There are a huge number of trolls and vandals who would love to be able to avoid being blocked by using a VPN. Wikipedia has to balance the need to stop them with the need to let legitimate VPN users edit.
In May of 2018 I posted a request for Comment and got a clarification on who should be granted IPBE.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exempt...
The result of that discussion was:
:It's likely safe to say that administrator judgement on a case-by-case basis can decide whether the provided justification constitutes a legitimate need and whether that need is sufficient to grant IPBE.. it's pretty clear that the community at large likely also doesn't want it to be routinely granted, for lack of a better phrase, just because someone wants it and could hat-collect it. Someone should likely, for example, actually be affected by a block to request it and/or someone should probably be able to explain their need for the additional layer of privacy rather than just, 'Hey I want IPBE because I said the word privacy.' "
That was the decision of the Wikipedia community. If you think that decision was "silly" you are free to post an RfC and see if the consensus has changed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unblock_Ticket_Reque...
EDIT: But I do trust it. So maybe it doesn't matter?
Sometimes they don't even get through the first sentence before the person has to stop them with corrections.
edit: sorry, was being a bit rude.
I don't know a feasible solution, but I often think the prominent voices are more of a problem than the average contributor.
Maybe not tracking the amount of contributios would help. More anonymous access to help against echo chambers and networks?
But I do remember reading about a physicist who wasn't allowed to edit the Wiki on their theory! (sorry can't remember who / when)
:Would you really prefer it if Wikipedia allowed David Miscavige ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miscavige ) to edit the Wikipedia page on Scientology ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology )?
:Wikipedia's policies on writing about yourself are spot on. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Best_practices_for_e...
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
Re "I've heard bad things about writing articles on Wikis. Lots of ego-wars." you hear those things from new Wikipedia users who decide that the first thing they should do is either [A] "Fix" the Donald Trump article, [B] try to use Wikipedia to advertise their garage band, or [C] try to correct the biases I list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:YWAB
If you pick an article, check the history, and find that it ISN'T getting 300 edits every day, you will have a much easier time improving that article.
My Wikipedia page has a link so you can email me. I will be glad to help if you want to become a Wikipedia editor.
EDIT: Fixed a bad link.
Also, that link doesn't work. think you need a dot! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Yes._We_are_bia...)
This works:
I replaced it with another page on Wikipedia that redirects to the "User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased." page.
Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer".
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
Wealth means you can buy nearly anything and that includes people who found a non-profit so one can use them to get to entities like WMF.
The scariest scenario in my opinion is their growing influence on the power of definition.
Like news organizations led by wealthy entities the WMF could just be slightly tuned to spread their alternative truth.
I think this power of defining truth is one of the major battlefields of the 21st century. Look at the annexation of Crimea for example. Was it an annexation or not? For us (people of the West) it seems quite clear but ask people from Russia and a lot of them will tell you another story.
Isn't truth truth by its definition?
I can't think of many people I know who have the time to become investigative journalists, in effect. And I know that a lot of things I think I know are probably propaganda or spin or just one sided stories.
Big problem indeed.
How can we flush this from our minds? How do we trust those that purport to speak the truth?
For example, here's an easy one, pi=3.14159 (if rounded to 5 decimal places). Great! I think we all agree this is true. The trouble is without context, this is trivia.
Here is a harder one as we move up the complexity scale. Is Human-driven climate change both 1) real and 2) something we can reasonably combat?
Well, the scientists who study it seem to think it's real and there are ways humankind can reasonably push back against it. But there are many, many who believe differently. Which stance is "true"?
Even harder. Is there a God? I mean, from a philosophical view. Sure by scientific definitions we have to assume there is no measurable supernatural. But does that preclude it's existence? For a significant number of people, G-d of some sort exists. And which is the "truth"????
I'm not soliciting hard answers, just trying to show that as you move to more complex, and in many respects more important, topics of today the notion that there is one singular truth in existence gets fuzzier.
"Here is a harder one as we move up the complexity scale."
What is the complexity scale? How do you measure how complex truth is? Can truth have properties other than rightness or wrongness?
This, I think, is where the concept of fuzzy truth could be invoked. What that is I have no idea, I just made it up!
Perhaps a far aside:
Annexation is a quite defined term, specifically: "the addition of an area or region to a country". Word definitions can change over time, but right now this is what it means. It's not necessarily a charged word either.
This was an annexation, regardless if you believe it was just or not.
And on the latter discussion, I'm much more interested in what people in Crimea think than Russians or us in the West.
Yup. This is the best definition of Orwellian.
Forking Wikipedia is already allowed and encouraged: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks That page even has a place to list new forks so they are easy to find.
The only way to make it work would be for the existing Wikipedia to run out of money and have to shut down. That isn't happening any time soon.
That has been true for a decade now, since the days of Stack Exchange complaining about the clones riding their CC licensed content to easy Google ranking. You can put up a perfect clone of Wikipedia, you'll get nearly zero traffic despite having millions of pages of high quality content.
Having a few different pages isn't going to help.
With Wikipedia or stack overflow, I think whoever gets the majority of participants going forward and keeps activity high could start claiming authority in an objective enough sense, and engaged participants are more mindful of organization ethics than random searchers.
Losing even a small proportion of contributors could seriously affect the future development of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has been slowly losing editors for ~12 years[0].
[0]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Active_editors_on_En...
The sale or takeover would start with promises that nothing would change, and then would change slowly enough that each editor would have a different breaking point and thus be too fragmented to move over at a specific point.
A fork of Wikipedia with no community is just a content mirror and, because of network effects, you'll have an incredibly hard time attracting anyone to help out with it when they can just go to Wikipedia.
Wouldn’t that be legal?
To clarify, Wikipedia comprises not just the stuff which is free of copyright, but primarily the userbase, community, support staff, management structures, and (configured) servers it's hosted on. There's plenty to sell there.
Everything else is easily copied or duplicated, and indeed had been. The only thing you can't copy is the domain name. That's the thing that's worth millions of visitors.
The WMF is mission-driven. A large swath of their funds are spent as grants to other organisations, and they could par that back without affecting their ability to operate.
[disc: Wikipedian since 2004, many friends who are WMF employees]
Sure, but can they? Seems like an ever expanding cash sink, according to those financials...
I guess more concretely, the wikipedia.org domain is a very valuable asset.
Query google "can a non profit go for profit"
Result 1: How to Convert Nonprofit to Profit
>Notify the IRS by writing a "statement of nonprofit conversion"
Query google "statement of nonprofit conversion"
Result 1: PDF titled "Voluntarily Relinquishing of Tax Exempt Status" - PDF WARNING https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopick85.pdf
So I'm doubting it is illegal, worst case they convert to a for-profit and sell in this scenario.
The could sell ads, but also edit-permission to articles or cleaning of content, usage of licensed content, user-data, or a gazillion other things which are for the average user harmless in the beginning. Heck, I could see stupid influencers paying $100 for getting their own wikipedia-entry.
I vote in these elections and count Dr. James Heilman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Heilman) as a friend.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
It is not true that "Over half of the board is elected by the community of editors".
The WMF board is composed of ten members:
Four who are appointed by the board itself;
Three who are selected by the community encompassed by all the different Wikimedia projects
Two who are selected by the local chapters and thematic organizations
One emeritus for the foundation's founder, Jimmy Wales.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Board_of_...
That there are rules, eh I mean guidelines, is somewhat of a joke without means to enforce them. Disagreements across the void are more often than not resolved by ignoring the lower ranking editor. The concept of consensus[sic] is truly a joke with no clear path forwards. Money doesn't solve anything apparently.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
Re: "In the case of insolvency I don't think the board will have much choice"; this is a key point to understanding my essay. Imagine someone winning a huge lawsuit and the WMF not being able to pay. Or imagine a really bad scandal (something like The New York Times publishing conclusive proof that the WMF is a front for ISIS) and donations drop through the floor, followed by the WMF continuing to increase spending until they run out of funds. None of these doomsday scenarios are likely, but they are not impossible either.
Is there evidence the WMF has considered a sale of its assets?
When we in the West heard about Dragonfly we didn’t stop trusting our own Google results.
Meanwhile kids are learning that the Holocaust wasn't all that bad.
I might have been unclear, or I'm misunderstanding you, but charging people for something that used to be free is a great business model, since Wikipedia is so big and is so trusted that it's not realistic to go somewhere else or start a new wiki and hope it gets just as big and trusted.