
Google gives Wikimedia millions - tgvaughan
https://www.wired.com/story/google-wikipedia-machine-learning-glow-languages/
======
xref
I used to contribute heavily to Wikipedia in 2007-08 and intermittently since,
however recently it has become an absolute nightmare to contribute.

Creating a missing article almost immediately is met with an admin nominating
it for deletion for something like “notability”, the catch-all term for “I
personally don’t care about this topic, and if it was important someone would
have made it already.”

If you survive deletion then your article is often removed from the main
Wikipedia site into “draft space” where it is hoped you’ll just go away, with
a reason like “need more than the X-number of existing <refs> you have.”

If you still haven’t given up trying to contribute it is currently a 6 week
wait to have your article reviewed to be moved back into Wikipedia-proper.

However! You’ll find any fair-use images you uploaded to support your article
(say a movie poster), well those have been deleted since “draft space”
articles are banned from containing them.

Those are just some of the trials I’ve gone through in the last two months
trying to fill in some gaps on Wikipedia. It feels like they’ve added so many
layers of bureaucracy over the last decade even longtime contributors are
being forced away.

~~~
commoner
As Wikipedia became more popular, it also started attracting people and
companies who try to use it for writing promotional articles on themselves
with little to no basis in reality.

The notability requirement helps ensure that articles are accurate and can be
verified with trustworthy sources. A topic only needs 2 trustworthy sources
for an article, and if it doesn't meet that bar, then the topic is probably
better suited for a personal blog than a Wikipedia article.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability)

~~~
save_ferris
And also to scrub existing articles of certain details.

A former coworker once told me about a stint he did working for a company that
sold wikipedia edits. The founder was Brazilian and apparently their company
was super popular with Central and South American politicians trying to scrub
their pages of various financial scandals and other things unbecoming of a
politician.

I was shocked when he first told me about it, but it's pretty easy to see in
2019 that managing one's image online can be incredibly lucrative.

~~~
strken
I recently went to link a friend to the Landmark Forum Wikipedia page, and
found that instead of a "Criticism" section it had a "Criticism and public
option" section, which contained no allegations of cult-like behaviour until
the last two paragraphs, but did contain a surprising number of denials. The
talk and history page showed that any piece of actual criticism levelled at
the totally-not-a-cult was removed more or less instantly by a handful of
Landmark Forum members on the grounds of bias.

I have no idea where I would even start if I wanted to fix that article. It's
pretty ridiculous.

~~~
commoner
Landmark Worldwide has been a highly controversial subject on Wikipedia. There
are 32 pages of discussions on the article's talk page:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide)

To contribute to articles on controversial topics (such as politics and
religion), Wikipedia recommends the following:

1) Edit the article with the changes you want to make.

2) If another editor disagrees with you, they will revert your edit.

3) After your edit is reverted, go to the talk page of the article and discuss
the contents of your edit.

The key step is #3. Reverted edits are to be discussed.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle)

If you're unable to come to an agreement with other editors, you can use some
form of dispute resolution. The most popular method is the "request for
comment", in which all Wikipedia editors are invited to participate in a
debate, and the results determine the state of the article.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment)

Your point of view won't always be the one that wins the debate, but Wikipedia
editors are generally reasonable, and your arguments will be fairly heard.

~~~
zozbot123
> To contribute to articles on controversial topics (such as politics and
> religion), Wikipedia recommends the following:

> 1) Edit the article with the changes you want to make.

> 2) If another editor disagrees with you, they will revert your edit.

> 3) After your edit is reverted, go to the talk page of the article and
> discuss the contents of your edit.

This is actually a bad idea. It's fine for garden-variety editing that you
don't _expect_ to raise controversy, but if you want to affect something
controversial and not look like you're acting in bad faith, you _absolutely
need_ to go to the talk page first and propose your edit there. If no one
replies after a few days, then you have cover to just make the change 'per the
talk page' (and sometimes you do get reverted here - but now you can complain
that they didn't act fairly by commenting on your proposal!), but most likely
they will, and you'll get to hash out the wording on talk.

~~~
commoner
Yes, the 3-step process is not appropriate for every situation. As the page
notes:

> It is ideally suited to disputes that involve only a small number of people,
> all of whom are interested in making progress.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Alternatives)

Controversial edits in very popular articles will certainly require discussion
and frequently involve requests for comment.

------
paxys
Don't forget that Google once tried to kill Wikipedia with their own
proprietary project
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol)).
Really happy that was a failure.

~~~
skj
Is it impossible to attempt to innovate in a space without being accused of
trying to kill the space's current leader?

(googler, but had never even heard of knol until now)

~~~
lwansbrough
When Google innovates, it’s usually in a vein attempt to kill competitors in a
place where it sees an opportunity for more revenue. Competition from Google
is hardly ever fair (despite most of their projects being spectacular failures
regardless.)

So no it’s not impossible, but it’s always gonna happen when it’s
Google/Amazon and the “innovation” is a free alternative to a successful
independent business.

~~~
ajross
> When Google innovates, it’s usually in a vein attempt to kill competitors in
> a place where it sees an opportunity for more revenue

Isn't that how everyone innovates?

(FWIW: you meant "vain", I think, but that doesn't seem like the right word
either. Maybe "arrogant" was the spin you wanted?)

~~~
lokedhs
Vain seems like an appropriate word to use, when interpretated as "producing
no result; useless"

That is, after all, the end result of many of Google's attempts at dominating
a space. Their love of shutting services down will likely make further future
dominations of new fields even harder.

------
xbmcuser
A lot of Google Assistant and Google search answers are from Wikipedia
entries. So Us$3.1 million is very little investment for the returns they are
getting.

~~~
User23
There's a running joke that Google search is just a thin wikipedia wrapper.

~~~
Vinnl
I'm quite sure that it's just a StackOverflow wrapper.

------
Guereric
Please change the source to this:
[https://blog.google/products/search/expanding-knowledge-
acce...](https://blog.google/products/search/expanding-knowledge-access-
wikimedia-foundation/)

~~~
p49k
Please don't - we should be linking to objective journalistic sources which
provide analysis surrounding the decision, not one-sided puff pieces from the
sources themselves which can present their actions in any light they wish and
omit whatever relevant info they don't want presented.

------
olivermarks
Nearly All of Wikipedia Is Written By Just 1 Percent of Its Editors
[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x47bb/wikipedia-...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x47bb/wikipedia-
editors-elite-diversity-foundation)

~~~
martin_a
Tried writing for it in Germany, but stopped after two or three articles and
some minor corrections. It's full of people who feel enlightened and therefore
drive all the sane people off. It's a really ill climate in there. No fun.

------
lostgame
Fantastic news. Someone has to.

~~~
devereaux
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes // Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

~~~
squarefoot
You beat me at posting this same comment. A good move from Google, still it
raises some concerns. Should Wikipedia become dependent on Google's money in
the future say if they hired more people or invested in beefier hardware after
some agreement (put ads?), that would be a disaster.

Not unlike the pop or sports star who suddenly gets a huge contract and
stupidly begins spending loads of money in luxuries. By doing so he/she is now
being forced to keep making tons of money to maintain that lifestyle, de facto
becoming property of his/her management.

------
voycey
Probably just so they can get rid of that 1/3 page notification to "give them
money"

------
webaholic
I hope this reduces the "we need donations" banner to an extent. I contribute
changes whenever I can, so seeing that banner each and every time is a bit
frustrating.

~~~
kondro
Probably not. Wikimedia like money[1].

They've been running a revenue surplus of $20m+ per year for the last while
and are currently sitting on a $130m cash & equivalents hoard.

[1]
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/60/FY17-...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/60/FY17-18_-_Independent_Auditors%27_Report.pdf)

~~~
dingdongding
Considering there expenses are $80m in 2018, I think it is okey if they keep
some surplus as a cushion.

------
Jyaif
Reminder that Wikimedia receives north of 100 million of USD per year, with
the servers themselves costing 2 millions.

~~~
mavhc
So you're saying computers are cheap and humans expensive? Breaking news there

------
ykevinator
On the same day taxpayers gave millions to Google
[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autonomous-waymo/waymo-
sa...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autonomous-waymo/waymo-says-it-will-
build-self-driving-cars-in-michigan-idUSKCN1PG22R)

~~~
mattigames
8 million is peanuts compared to the cost that self-driving has had for google
and that cost will only increase until successful, and if that happens it will
save thousands of lives (mostly because it can't get drunk, it's mood-less and
respects speed limits)

~~~
ykevinator
I'm pro self driving car, just saying it's absurd to give taxpayer money to
Google (Amazon, etc.)

~~~
mattigames
8 million is not enough to buy a single tank for the military, and they buy
hundreds of those; if wasting taxpayers is your concern you looking at the
wrong places.

------
xfitm3
Google has so much money its scary.

------
Alexander473
Commerces "give back to the community", as MongoDB would say.

