
Wikimedia director on commercial use of Wikipedia - okket
https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/973791488583888896
======
olefoo
The ethics of this move are quite questionable on Youtubes part.

Dumping a large cognitive load on shared volunteer infrastructure without some
level of compensation? Not cool.

The fact that Youtube is doing this and is not:

* paying wikipedia for the service they are demanding of it

* offering wikipedia support in developing tooling to cope with the NEW TASKING that youtube is expecting

* talking to them about it before announcing it

Suggests that Youtube does not understand its own role in the media ecosystem
and is exposing itself to systemic legal and moral risks that could have
adverse effects on the company itself and possibly on the entire industry.

If someone gets to a Flat Earther video via autoplay ( start from watching
aircraft videos.. ) are they better served by being directed to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth)
orby being shown a countervailing video explaing that the earth is in fact
round and there's evidence and how to check it?

Does Youtube have a responsibility to help society stay within shouting
distance of the reality principle? I think it does.

Do you?

~~~
drivingmenuts
The thing is Wikipedia is out there for anyone to link to, without paying a
dime, and there are no legal requirements for compensation.

Now, you and others may think they have some ethical responsibility (I'm not
sure I agree with that) but if YouTube had to parse all the ethical
requirements their users thought they had to abide by, they'd never get
anything done.

B2B interactions are never bound by the same ethical constraints that human-
to-human interactions are. Corporations are not people - they can be bound by
laws but not arbitrary social conventions.

Near as I can tell, Wikipedia is SOL unless YouTube wants to help them out. YT
is certainly not obligated to.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Corporations are not people - they can be bound by laws but not arbitrary
> social conventions.

Corporations are bound by social conventions for the same reason natural
persons are: if they sufficiently violate them, people impose consequences on
the corporation by actively avoiding interactions beneficial to the
corporation.

------
comportboy
Am I the only one who thinks that _nothing_ should be done about the "fake
news" issue?

This debate is based on all sorts of fallacies. First, that fake news elected
someone. It did not. Second, that this is something new or inherent to the
Internet. It is not. Fake rumours and gossip have existed ever since we have
existed. People's judgement has been the sole thing holding the whole system
together for hundreds of years. Bankers, for example, spread rumours that
Nikola Tesla had sex with pigeons. It was fake but it spread like fire in NYC.
Did we ban free speech because of such things? No.

From most the discussion threads here it seems that censorship is the only way
forward, which scares me because people are falling for the trap and they are
justifying censorship.

Who will decide what videos are "controversial"? If we agree that fake news
should be regulated, what is the limit of state regulation? Why not then allow
them to censor most other politically incorrect forms of speech?

It seems to me like this is headed down a very dangerous path and it's scary
how people fall for it. Fake news is absolutely irrelevant and how it's been
blown up and is being exagerated in order to justify censorship is a
conspiracy in its own right. I'd be more concerned about this particular
conspiracy: someone is trying to justify censorship because one particular
candidate won an election.

~~~
Moru
Fake News is the media trying to cover up the embarrasment about not doing
their background checks before copy-pasting something and publishing it. Now
someone has to take the blame.

I'm sure someone is very happily converting this into a chance for control
over the censoring.

~~~
shaki-dora
This bears no resemblance to reality... You can disagree with the “fake news”
narrative, but you should have the decency to attack a good faith
interpretation of it, not whatever straw man you’re alluding to.

Here’s the gist, just in case you are actually confused: there are some sites
both large and small, from shady operations in the balkans to infowars, that
publish stories completely made up. One example might be the child abuse
enterprise run by Hillary Clinton from the basement of a pizzeria.

As we all know, that pizzeria didn’t even have a basement. So we can agree,
hopefully, that this was an insane conspiracy theory.

Such stories were/are extensively shared on social media in the run up to the
last election. And while they may not have been decisive, it’s hard to argue
that they had no effect whatsoever. At the very least, they fed the cynicism
and distrust already rotting in the core of society.

That’s the idea of „fake news“. You can dispute that it has any effect. You
can argue that some good comes out of this free-for-all. But note that
traditional media publishers simply play no role in this. To make this about
some perceived failure of the New York Times takes quite a lot of logical
gymnastics.

~~~
Moru
This is exactly what I mean. If it was on some obscure webpage, noone would
know about it but main stream media copy-paste news like this just because
they know people will click on it, not bothering to check if it is true or
not. For the newssite that is less interesting as long as they get clicks. Of
course this does not mean there are responsible journalists that does fact
checking on everything, they just get less with time.

------
egypturnash
I sure hope YouTube gives Wikipedia admins access to a constantly-updated list
of which pages they're linking to from conspiracy videos, so that Wikipedia
can lock down the editing in much the same way they do for developing news, or
recently-deceased celebrities.

~~~
tysonzni
Good idea. I'm also worried about the increased chance of trolling / false
editing that results from Youtube links. But I doubt Wikipedia is ready to or
wants to be this involved in collaborating with any for-profit.

~~~
yorwba
If the browser sends the referer, Wikipedia will be able to figure out
themselves which pages YouTube points to. Then it won't be such much
intentional collaboration, but instead damage control to prevent vandalism. I
doubt Wikipedia is going to like doing that, but they don't have many other
options.

------
mesozoic
Who's choosing which videos are conspiracy theories? For that matter who's
choosing which Wikipedia facts are shown with the videos they label as
conspiracy? Are there no two contradictory pages on Wikipedia?

Are their demonitization efforts not working well enough to shut down those
who disagree with their viewpoints?

------
bertil
I remember that Google offered to support Wikipedia (financially and
otherwise) several times over and was denied. It’s possible that the offer
came with strings attached, but I can’t imagine Google being that clumsy. I
have little doubt that if the foundation needs more money, YouTube will be
more than happy to help out. But, so far, Wikipedia has refused because they
want to remain as impartial as possible and can’t rely on too large swaths of
funding from too few sources.

YouTube has tried to implement moderation and failed to address conspiration-
wielders. No matter what they do, someone will decry it as “a platform
controlled by the rich” [0]. Wikimedia has been addressing similar issues for
almost two decades and has proven more effective than YouTube. Or anyone,
really: there is a reason they are scraped for truth. Snopes itself shouldn’t
be trusted as a direct source anymore than Wikipedia. The difference is that
Wikipedia allows a debate.

Katherine Maher wants use to “read @Wikipedia with a critical eye” [1] and who
is going to do that better than Flat-Earthers? That change is going to be
disruptive but will help Wikipedia develop its own critical-thinking.

Is it a good move for Wikipedia? No, it’s exposing itself to critics, which is
painful, but it is what the foundation explicitly say they need.

Should YouTube have made a deal, given Wikipedia money to help with that
problem? Probably not, it would hurt more than it helps.

Is YouTube exposing Wikipedia’s brand more and given then an opportunity to
communicate on their mission? They have. I’m more likely to give to them if
they tell me that they need money to face DDOS from the Flat Earth society
than if they keep offering a very easy to overlook service.

I’m not saying Google is innocent: they should attribute their facts to the
proper author list in their snippets, for instance, but I seriously doubt that
they would hesitate to respond to any request for support.

[0]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16590852](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16590852)

[1]:
[https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/973795473113968641](https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/973795473113968641)

------
rory096
This seems like an example of Wikimedia cancer.[0] They should be crowing
about the novel ways in which people are spreading their freely licensed
knowledge without a pile of cash, obstacles, and bureaucracy thanks to the
wonders of copyleft.

Instead they seem to be complaining that someone (albeit a huge multinational
corporation, though I don't see why that should matter) _dare_ use their
content without ponying up cash as a "donation" to the cause.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-
ed)

~~~
icebraining
The tweets are all about promoting editing, and the dangers of turning
Wikimedia into a read-only source of Truth, rather than something that should
be seen as a shared resourced to be improved and verified. She barely mentions
donations, and only in a list of all the ways people can contribute.

------
thisisit
Couple of years ago I had a colleague who was obsessed over getting his name
on Wikipedia. So he had someone add a page for his town. Then he edited the
page to include about how he was the star captain of a local league. To play a
practical joke on him, we edited the page to remove his name. Soon it devolved
into a cat and mouse game of editing and re-editing the page.

I don't know if wikipedia now strictly monitors page edits. But, if they don't
I hope Youtube also adds a big red warning on the page - Do not believe
everything on the internet, even if it is wikipedia.

~~~
dawnerd
Depends on the article but I've seen some moderators take it way too seriously
to the point of rolling back an edit simply because you didn't ask them, the
person you're somehow supposed to know "owns" the page. Kind of defeats the
purpose of a wiki and has turned me off contributing to it.

I think what youtube should do is just put a disclaimer on videos saying "This
video is related to an unproven conspiracy" or similar. I doubt linking to a
wikipedia page is going to change anyones mind.

~~~
marksomnian
That is grossly against Wikipedia policy and that editor could get sanctioned,
including being blocked. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content)

~~~
cooper12
I doubt someone literally said "you have to ask me first". One thing I've
noticed in every thread on Wikipedia on HN is that no one has the faintest
clue about what admins do [0], and what's going on when they're trying to edit
a page. It's more likely that they changed something that was against
consensus, and likely had past discussion. They were also probably told
something to that effect in the edit summary. And for some reason whenever
people share their grievances, they never provide more context like the page
it occurred on or their specific edit. Just because it's the encyclopedia that
anyone can edit, doesn't mean it's obligated to take each and every edit
regardless of content, quality, or conformance to guidelines and consensus.
Wikipedia is also extensively documented, [1] so there's even less reason for
a forum that prides itself on being programmer/engineer types to stay so
ignorant.

[0]: Wikipedia doesn't have "moderators". Anyone can revert edits and just
because they opposed your edit, it doesn't automatically mean they're an
admin, of which there are only around a thousand.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents)

~~~
dawnerd
Granted it was a while ago and things may have changed, trying to do a simple
typo correction lead to what I described. I really don't have time to dig
through their documentation just to do something as minor as fixing spelling.
It was obvious the editor took offense to it. So thats that from me, sorry for
helping I guess.

Also run into problems where pages on companies are wrong and edits are
prevented even though the information is outright inaccurate. Apparently
having the info on the company website isn't cite-able? Seems stupid to me.

~~~
cooper12
The fact that it was a "simple typo" makes me sure there was more to it than
that because no one would revert that if it were so. It's likely that it was
something you _saw_ as a typo such as the spelling of colour vs color. [0]

> Apparently having the info on the company website isn't cite-able? Seems
> stupid to me.

Depends what you're trying to cite. Most small pieces information can be cited
just fine to primary sources, though secondary sources are preferred. [1]
However, more controversial statements or claims of notability require a
reliable independent source, [2] or else any company could claim "we're the
best" on their page and include it on Wikipedia.

Anyway in both these cases, you fall into the trap I listed before, where
you're soooooooo certain that you're in the right and the stupid encyclopedia
and its editors are power hungry. Have you ever considered maybe there's more
reasoning to it then? Again, I almost guarantee there were reasons given in
both cases to which you didn't give the least attention. You wouldn't go
making a pull request to an open source project full of code that goes against
their style guide, introduces a regression, and is suboptimal and then get
righteous that it wasn't accepted without question would you?

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Nati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English)

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_usin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources)

------
paxys
Wikipedia is already notoriously unreliable and has a huge moderation problem.
Passing the entire "fake news" problem down to them is the last thing we need.

~~~
tysonzni
This is completely wrong. Here's a collection of research on Wikipedia's
reliability. In fact, it's been found to be as accurate as _Encyclopedia
Britannica_ in multiple studies. Its pharmacology entries, for example, are
more accurate than textbooks. Other examples are included as well.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Compa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Comparative_studies)

~~~
yorwba
Quite ironic to link to Wikipedia as your source for Wikipedia's reliability.
I do think that Wikipedia is quite reliable, so I don't have a problem with
that, but I think the article doesn't quite support your point.

While multiple studies comparing several encyclopedias are mentioned, they
tend to have small sample sizes (only a few articles) and being on par with
other encyclopedias doesn't necessarily make Wikipedia reliable, it could just
as well be that the other options are similarly unreliable (it seems like all
studies found something to criticize).

Additionally, I interpret "Wikipedia's information about pharmacology was
99.7% accurate when compared to a pharmacology textbook" to mean that the
pharmacology textbook was taken as the gold standard and Wikipedia got pretty
close. But 3 errors per 1000 (whatever their unit of measurement was) might
not be reliable enough to be used by pharmacologists.

~~~
tysonzni
Every statement in that particular section has sources linked, which means you
can see for yourself whether it's true or not. Are you saying studies
published in _Nature_ or _New England Journal of Medicine_ can't be trusted?

 _I do think that Wikipedia is quite reliable, so I don 't have a problem with
that, but I think the article doesn't quite support your point._

Compared to alternatives, Wikipedia is perhaps the best at combining high
reliability, "freshness" and breadth of content. What's your benchmark for
measuring reliability? I can't think of many others.

~~~
singularity2001
Yes Wikipedia and the link sources are good but it is still ironic. You know
Wikipedia _could_ cherry pick their links. They don't, but they _could_.

~~~
tysonzni
Fair point.

------
singularity2001
can someone explain/translate her diplomatic stance to a 5 year old in one
sentence?

~~~
Vinnl
If you see an excerpt of a Wikipedia article, please go to that page on
Wikipedia, examine it critically, and correct mistakes if you see them.

~~~
singularity2001
is there a between-the-lines message towards Google?

~~~
Vinnl
"When you highlight Wikipedia content, please encourage people to contribute
and to read it with a critical eye. Also, please contribute financially or
with infrastructure if it helps you make money."

But it's best to read the tweets yourself, since it's based on interpretation.
There's not that many of them.

~~~
gowld
Quite an irony to tell someone to read a tweetstorm lecturing them about the
importance of in-depth critical analysis.

------
gowld
Is there a non-twitterspasm version of this essay?

------
mcast
When did conspiracy theories become harmful? This seems like a move straight
out of “1984”.

If someone wants to believe (insert grandiose and stupid theory), who cares?
YouTube started as an entertainment platform, not a learning tool.

~~~
teraflop
Well there was that one guy who murdered his father last year because he
thought his parents were part of the Pizzagate conspiracy:
[http://www.businessinsider.com/former-milo-yiannopoulos-
inte...](http://www.businessinsider.com/former-milo-yiannopoulos-intern-
killed-his-own-father-alt-right-circles-online-trump-2017-10)

~~~
verylittlemeat
I have a controversial and maybe stupid question that is probably unanswerable
one way or the other.

If you're going to murder your parents over a conspiracy theory is there any
reason to assume you wouldn't murder them for a dozen other reasons? How
justified is censoring a platform for millions of users because of one
mentally ill user?

Is there any evidence that being exposed to certain ideas "pushes someone over
the edge" any more than what they can come up with in their own head or
without technological assistance? I've read some stuff about school shootings
that suggests media coverage encourages "copycat" attacks.

I'm not just trying to be a contrarian or apologist for a murderer but the
causation here seems rhetorically appealing but realistically sketchy to me.
People have been killing each other over politics since as long as recorded
history.

~~~
MaulingMonkey
> If you're going to murder your parents over a conspiracy theory is there any
> reason to assume you wouldn't murder them for a dozen other reasons?

I'd wager that some will and some won't, and that if you were morbid enough
you could probably measure such a thing statistically.

> How justified is censoring a platform for millions of users because of one
> mentally ill user?

Not only the mentally ill occasionally have absolutely terrible ideas, buy
into something stupid, or get occasionally conned. _Adding_ information to
videos is also not censorship - at least insofar as I'd define the term, or
generally seen it defined, unless perhaps if you're going so far as to try to
bury a needle in a haystack - so I'm not sure the question is relevant here
unless you're worried about some slippery slope or something.

I'd hesitate to impose censorship, but adding information to pierce the walls
of echo chambers - and to let e.g. "the marketplace of ideas" actually work -
seems like a great idea to me. Not that any implementation of such a thing
won't have it's flaws, mind you.

> Is there any evidence that being exposed to certain ideas "pushes someone
> over the edge" any more than what they can come up with in their own head or
> without technological assistance? I've read some stuff about school
> shootings that suggests media coverage encourages "copycat" attacks.

I feel like you've answered your own question here, but I may be missing
something. Isn't what a copycat being exposed to when they read the news about
one of these incidents, also ideas? Terrible, terrible ideas? Or are you
perhaps asking if any of that stuff you've read rises to the level of evidence
instead of clickbait hearsay? I've likely read little more than you have -
references to studies that suggest the evidence is there. I don't recall
reading about any studies refuting that idea or showing no correlation.

~~~
verylittlemeat
I agree with you that what youtube is doing now is not censorship by any
standard definition and I don't think it's a bad thing. You might be able to
argue that it's a form of "positive censorship" in the sense that a wiki on a
video would be a scarlet letter but even that seems like very weak censorship.

I included the example of copycat attacks to show good faith that I'm not
ignoring examples I know of that counter my own argument. What I'm trying to
understand is the role of radicalization and conspiracy in violent acts. We
know there are large communities of radical conspiracy theorists and yet
physical violence or violent harassment is only a small subset of that
community. How safely can we presume that "radical media" is the main cause of
the latter violent groups? It's definitely an appealing narrative to imagine
these people groom and reinforce their own beliefs until they "boil over" into
violence but is that really how it works? We act as though people can be
almost brainwashed into doing terrible things just by mere exposure. I'm
arguing that at the very least it's more complicated than that and we should
inject a little bit of nuance into the rhetoric of what conspiracy theories
mean for society.

