RE: https://wandering.shop/@susankayequinn/115901357070406663
-
RE: https://wandering.shop/@susankayequinn/115901357070406663
Imma go out on a limb & say that Wikipedia just lost almost all of their editors & are about to find out who REALLY creates the actual value...
These motherfuckers, man. The stupidity, the greed, the duplicity. 🤬
@jwcph I'm an editor since almost twenty years and I don't see why this would make me stop. Why do you think I should?
-
RE: https://wandering.shop/@susankayequinn/115901357070406663
Imma go out on a limb & say that Wikipedia just lost almost all of their editors & are about to find out who REALLY creates the actual value...
These motherfuckers, man. The stupidity, the greed, the duplicity. 🤬
@jwcph well, to be honest, they are already stealing our content whether we accept it or not, so having a partnership that makes them at least less harmful is not the worst idea (even if it pisses me off)
-
@jwcph well, to be honest, they are already stealing our content whether we accept it or not, so having a partnership that makes them at least less harmful is not the worst idea (even if it pisses me off)
@Luk So if a guy breaks into your house & starts shovelling your belongings into a sack, you're gonna make a deal with him? Of course the metaphor works if calling the police is ineffective & dangerous, but it's still an absolutely terrible idea. I don't hold to defeatism myself.
-
@jwcph I'm an editor since almost twenty years and I don't see why this would make me stop. Why do you think I should?
@ainali Because every single keystroke is now free work, not for the community as before but for Sam Altman, Dario Amodei & Co. & their "Burn the world to a cinder while destroying all human knowledge & culture" business model & each keystroke brings closer the day when they shut down Wikipedia & make everyone ask a chatbot, which will mangle all the work you did beyond recognition even before it starts injecting ads & fascism into it.
To me that'd be a pretty good reason if I'm being honest.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
-
@ainali Because every single keystroke is now free work, not for the community as before but for Sam Altman, Dario Amodei & Co. & their "Burn the world to a cinder while destroying all human knowledge & culture" business model & each keystroke brings closer the day when they shut down Wikipedia & make everyone ask a chatbot, which will mangle all the work you did beyond recognition even before it starts injecting ads & fascism into it.
To me that'd be a pretty good reason if I'm being honest.
-
@ainali @TheDJ@mastoDodon.social Not to put too fine a point on it, but what the fuck is wrong with you!? Do you keep all your windows open so burglars won't have to break them to get in & steal all your stuff?
Also, the erstwhile plan didn't involve locking all of Wikipedia behind a paywall & letting out only distorted morsels - this one does. Do you really want to work on that project, for free (or even paid)?
Because then I don't think you & I can be friends, mate.
-
@ainali @TheDJ@mastoDodon.social Not to put too fine a point on it, but what the fuck is wrong with you!? Do you keep all your windows open so burglars won't have to break them to get in & steal all your stuff?
Also, the erstwhile plan didn't involve locking all of Wikipedia behind a paywall & letting out only distorted morsels - this one does. Do you really want to work on that project, for free (or even paid)?
Because then I don't think you & I can be friends, mate.
@jwcph As far as I understand, any volunteer can get access to the new API if they need to without paying. (Although I don't know anyone who would need it since it is exactly the same content as on the regular servers.)
And all Wikipedia is still free to access for everyone even through their regular API. The difference is that high-volume users that don't really "read" it (and previously also didn't bother to use the APIs) are pointed to another outlet optimized for machines.
-
@jwcph As far as I understand, any volunteer can get access to the new API if they need to without paying. (Although I don't know anyone who would need it since it is exactly the same content as on the regular servers.)
And all Wikipedia is still free to access for everyone even through their regular API. The difference is that high-volume users that don't really "read" it (and previously also didn't bother to use the APIs) are pointed to another outlet optimized for machines.
@ainali You understand it completely wrong. Go learn about enshittification - it's always open & inclusive at the first stage. Please, man, PLEASE don't be fooled by this bullshit.
-
@jwcph As far as I understand, any volunteer can get access to the new API if they need to without paying. (Although I don't know anyone who would need it since it is exactly the same content as on the regular servers.)
And all Wikipedia is still free to access for everyone even through their regular API. The difference is that high-volume users that don't really "read" it (and previously also didn't bother to use the APIs) are pointed to another outlet optimized for machines.
@jwcph I think your analogy is missing out on that their current hammering on the servers is not illegal like burglary. And believe me, I wish there wasn't a need for this and that this abusive scraping was illegal, but I don't think there are any jurisdictions supporting that notion.
-
@ainali You understand it completely wrong. Go learn about enshittification - it's always open & inclusive at the first stage. Please, man, PLEASE don't be fooled by this bullshit.
@jwcph Oh, I have read Doctorow a lot and agree with him on so much, especailly on his latest crusades against the AI companies. I think my point here is that I truly believe Wikimedia is doing this to protect the users, not exploit them.
-
@jwcph I think your analogy is missing out on that their current hammering on the servers is not illegal like burglary. And believe me, I wish there wasn't a need for this and that this abusive scraping was illegal, but I don't think there are any jurisdictions supporting that notion.
@ainali If Wikimedia would protect users they wouldn't make this deal; we know what the AI sector is expecting to get out of it.
Also, you don't seem to have read Doctorow enough; he makes quite an effort to clarify that Big Tech does tons of stuff that is, in fact, illegal - such as stealing; oh, so much stealing - but skirt the law by doing it digitally. Saying "it isn't illegal" is, again, entirely missing the point.
-
@ainali If Wikimedia would protect users they wouldn't make this deal; we know what the AI sector is expecting to get out of it.
Also, you don't seem to have read Doctorow enough; he makes quite an effort to clarify that Big Tech does tons of stuff that is, in fact, illegal - such as stealing; oh, so much stealing - but skirt the law by doing it digitally. Saying "it isn't illegal" is, again, entirely missing the point.
@jwcph So you rather wish that Wikimedia should let the Big Tech keep hammering Wikipedia's regular servers and putting a lot of load of them? That's what they have been doing so far, but now they can go away to a place where they don't disturb ordinary Wikipedians like me. The realistic option is not if they are getting the content or not, but how and from where.
-
@jwcph So you rather wish that Wikimedia should let the Big Tech keep hammering Wikipedia's regular servers and putting a lot of load of them? That's what they have been doing so far, but now they can go away to a place where they don't disturb ordinary Wikipedians like me. The realistic option is not if they are getting the content or not, but how and from where.
@ainali I don't know if you're not reading my posts, not understanding them, or deliberately being obtuse - but in good faith, let me say it politely one more time: It's not about getting the content (you're right, we know they already steal it - and yes, it's called stealing).
It's about replacing Wikipedia with a hallucinating chatbot. THAT is the project you, personally, are working on now.
