Hasten WHAT Day?

[Ming]

Ming will come right out with it: Ming doesn't see WP having any fate but petering out, due to editor burnout, trailing off of sources, and possibly people losing interest in clicking through to it. But it's not likely to go away dramatically.

[Midsize Jake]

The duration of the Decline Phase depends on whether or not viable competition emerges, possibly driven by a paradigm shift (most likely from text to video, or less likely from screens to VR). Unfortunately, the WMF now has so much money saved up that the Decline Phase will almost certainly last longer than it should in tech-evolutionary (techvolutionary?) terms, and of course the information itself will never completely vanish unless the entire planet's electronic/digital infrastructure is destroyed by some sort of global EMP or solar-flare scenario. (And even then, there will be printouts...)

I guess a more realistic way of looking at it is that we're not hoping to hasten the day on which Wikipedia essentially disappears, but rather the day on which we can say that the decline has become irreversible and that one or more new, and hopefully better, rivals will inevitably displace it.

Some might even say the decline is already irreversible, given that WMF management has shown no capacity for effective problem-solving, at least with respect to content and user-interaction. But you can't completely dismiss the possibility that someone there might emerge who knows what he or she is doing.

[Poetlister]

Wht do people imagine would happen if the day did come? Would the Internet suddenly blossom with high-quality free reference sources? It might be a salutary exercise to take a thousand WP articles at random and see how many of them could be replaced by existing superior web sources.

[Bezdomni]

"the" day of course -- that timeless day of unveiling, the meltdown of the first & last centrales. Cf. 2 Pyè 3:11-12

I fight against the propaganda of progress, and this propaganda bears the name of never-ending acceleration.
source

edit: got my verses mixed up and wanted to say "lohipedia".

[Graaf Statler]

The duration of the Decline Phase depends on whether or not viable competition emerges, possibly driven by a paradigm shift (most likely from text to video, or less likely from screens to VR). Unfortunately, the WMF now has so much money saved up that the Decline Phase will almost certainly last longer than it should in tech-evolutionary (techvolutionary?) terms, and of course the information itself will never completely vanish unless the entire planet's electronic/digital infrastructure is destroyed by some sort of global EMP or solar-flare scenario. (And even then, there will be printouts...)

I guess a more realistic way of looking at it is that we're not hoping to hasten the day on which Wikipedia essentially disappears, but rather the day on which we can say that the decline has become irreversible and that one or more new, and hopefully better, rivals will inevitably displace it.

Some might even say the decline is already irreversible, given that WMF management has shown no capacity for effective problem-solving, at least with respect to content and user-interaction. But you can't completely dismiss the possibility that someone there might emerge who knows what he or she is doing.

Google is the key in this story. At the moment Google dumps Wikipedia, it's there end. Because, if the first position money earning system disappears, they are gone.
But I think they will sink like the Titanic, because one day they will hit the copyvio iceberg.

[Bezdomni]

By the way, there is an online Hawaiian bible (just not through Bible Gateway) and it doesn't use a derivative of "wiki" to translate "over-fastening time". I'm guessing it's the word in red, after thoroughly enjoying this remarkable page where, when you highlight any word (or even suffix), a whole host of definitions pop up. (Oddly, though, it might be "loa"... too, to an excessive degree... ^^ )

11 A no ka lilo ʻana o kēia mau mea a pau, he aha ke ʻano pono no ʻoukou e noho hemolele ana, a me ka haipule,

12 Me ka manaʻo aku, a me ka makemake loa i ka hiki ʻana mai o ka lā o ke Akua, ka manawa e wela ai nā lani i ke ahi, a heheʻe wale, a e kakahe mai nō hoʻi nā kumu mua i ka wela loa o ke ahi?

source

fact: Citizendium was a nice (but unnecessary) link in the chain to finding this page. Slowpedia.

[CrowsNest]

Ming's limited vision prevents him from seeing the doomsday scenario that was recently spoken of on this very board. It is the day Google/Apple/Amazon/Tesla/KFC switches on its AI engine, the one designed to process natural language queries inputted as voice or as a last resort, text, then examines a host of reliable sources in the cloud, all linked up via metadata, and presents the result as a one time user customised result, in whichever format is convenient for the customer, copyrighted of course.

Naturally, such an engine won't use the garbage pile that is Wikipedia as a source, although I guess we cannot rule out, in one delicious irony, that it will mine Wikipedia for source metadata, most likely as a one time dump to the cloud.

Wikipedians are bears with small brains, this is a future they are truly incapable of forseeing, so they will be completely unprepared for it. Wikipedia may not die immediately of course, the idea that the cultists participate for the benefit of the readers has always been one big lie/delusion, they will still need their daily fix. But the decline will be rapid, and lock down in read only mode will be the likely end game.

[CrowsNest]

It might be a salutary exercise to take a thousand WP articles at random and see how many of them could be replaced by existing superior web sources.

You say that like you don't already know the vast majority would be useless unreferenced or poorly referenced junk, as per the Crap Articles thread, or stubs stripped straight from a database with no added value. Many more are basically just rearranged news reports.

The percentage of Wikipedia that is uniquely useful, is likely in the order of 5%. And those pages don't get that way, without the reliable sources to build them being out there, somewhere. That is, after all, their model. They may not be online, but since Wikipedia can't guarantee source-text integrity, if you really need reliable information, you're no better off with a Wikipedia article.

[Graaf Statler]

It is the day Google/Apple/Amazon/Tesla/KFC switches on its AI engine, the one designed to process natural language queries inputted as voice or as a last resort, text, then examines a host of reliable sources in the cloud, all linked up via metadata, and presents the result as a one time user customised result, in whichever format is convenient for the customer, copyrighted of course.

Of course. They are not as stupide as Google to distribute wiki junk and copyvio, what can even bring them down. And I think they need Wikipedia to get all pollution from the sources, and I am sure they regulate the copyright about the material they use. Wikipedia is just a sad joke. Although I think there will always be people who write articles, just like there are people who are still painting paintings.

[Randy from Boise]

The duration of the Decline Phase depends on whether or not viable competition emerges, possibly driven by a paradigm shift (most likely from text to video, or less likely from screens to VR). Unfortunately, the WMF now has so much money saved up that the Decline Phase will almost certainly last longer than it should in tech-evolutionary (techvolutionary?) terms, and of course the information itself will never completely vanish unless the entire planet's electronic/digital infrastructure is destroyed by some sort of global EMP or solar-flare scenario. (And even then, there will be printouts...)

I guess a more realistic way of looking at it is that we're not hoping to hasten the day on which Wikipedia essentially disappears, but rather the day on which we can say that the decline has become irreversible and that one or more new, and hopefully better, rivals will inevitably displace it.

Some might even say the decline is already irreversible, given that WMF management has shown no capacity for effective problem-solving, at least with respect to content and user-interaction. But you can't completely dismiss the possibility that someone there might emerge who knows what he or she is doing.

Google is the key in this story. At the moment Google dumps Wikipedia, it's there end. Because, if the first position money earning system disappears, they are gone.
But I think they will sink like the Titanic, because one day they will hit the copyvio iceberg.

Google is making lots and lots of money off Wikipedia, thank you very much. They dig free, steadily updating content that can be exploited.

RfB

[Casliber]

Ming's limited vision prevents him from seeing the doomsday scenario that was recently spoken of on this very board. It is the day Google/Apple/Amazon/Tesla/KFC switches on its AI engine, the one designed to process natural language queries inputted as voice or as a last resort, text, then examines a host of reliable sources in the cloud, all linked up via metadata, and presents the result as a one time user customised result, in whichever format is convenient for the customer, copyrighted of course.

Oh yes, like all those reliable journals and authoritative sources as they are going to magically figure out how to sift the wheat from the chaff....yeah right..

You write like someone who's never been to university and imagines it to be full of sooper dooper smart people who will all magically appear and facilitate this process...

sigh

[CrowsNest]

Ming's limited vision prevents him from seeing the doomsday scenario that was recently spoken of on this very board. It is the day Google/Apple/Amazon/Tesla/KFC switches on its AI engine, the one designed to process natural language queries inputted as voice or as a last resort, text, then examines a host of reliable sources in the cloud, all linked up via metadata, and presents the result as a one time user customised result, in whichever format is convenient for the customer, copyrighted of course.

Oh yes, like all those reliable journals and authoritative sources as they are going to magically figure out how to sift the wheat from the chaff....yeah right..

You write like someone who's never been to university and imagines it to be full of sooper dooper smart people who will all magically appear and facilitate this process...

sigh

You write like someone whose entire reason for being is about to disappear.

[Ming]

Ming's limited vision prevents him from seeing the doomsday scenario that was recently spoken of on this very board. It is the day Google/Apple/Amazon/Tesla/KFC switches on its AI engine, the one designed to process natural language queries inputted as voice or as a last resort, text, then examines a host of reliable sources in the cloud, all linked up via metadata, and presents the result as a one time user customised result, in whichever format is convenient for the customer, copyrighted of course.

Ming isn't worried about living that long.

Naturally, such an engine won't use the garbage pile that is Wikipedia as a source, although I guess we cannot rule out, in one delicious irony, that it will mine Wikipedia for source metadata, most likely as a one time dump to the cloud.

Ming is pretty sure they will try to start from WP, because after all Siri and Cortana are already using it, and presumably for the same obvious reason: it's free. Most people won't be able to tell the difference, or because they may be expected to pay for it won't use it, not when they have other sources tuned to their prejudices beamed directly into their brains for free.

[Graaf Statler]

The duration of the Decline Phase depends on whether or not viable competition emerges, possibly driven by a paradigm shift (most likely from text to video, or less likely from screens to VR). Unfortunately, the WMF now has so much money saved up that the Decline Phase will almost certainly last longer than it should in tech-evolutionary (techvolutionary?) terms, and of course the information itself will never completely vanish unless the entire planet's electronic/digital infrastructure is destroyed by some sort of global EMP or solar-flare scenario. (And even then, there will be printouts...)

I guess a more realistic way of looking at it is that we're not hoping to hasten the day on which Wikipedia essentially disappears, but rather the day on which we can say that the decline has become irreversible and that one or more new, and hopefully better, rivals will inevitably displace it.

Some might even say the decline is already irreversible, given that WMF management has shown no capacity for effective problem-solving, at least with respect to content and user-interaction. But you can't completely dismiss the possibility that someone there might emerge who knows what he or she is doing.

Google is the key in this story. At the moment Google dumps Wikipedia, it's there end. Because, if the first position money earning system disappears, they are gone.
But I think they will sink like the Titanic, because one day they will hit the copyvio iceberg.

Google is making lots and lots of money off Wikipedia, thank you very much. They dig free, steadily updating content that can be exploited.
RfB

Yes, but is it a legal way? They favor one service, wikipedia, something they are have already been fined for by the EU, the wiki articles are filled up with copyvio, and they are distribute them uncontrolled in the EU. And other wiki's have no chance. So, after all, I doubt if it was a good idea. Did you know every EU citizen can complain about this practices for free, and online? Looks to me a tricky idea to make money. Should there lawyers have noticed this?

[Graaf Statler]

Ming's limited vision prevents him from seeing the doomsday scenario that was recently spoken of on this very board. It is the day Google/Apple/Amazon/Tesla/KFC switches on its AI engine, the one designed to process natural language queries inputted as voice or as a last resort, text, then examines a host of reliable sources in the cloud, all linked up via metadata, and presents the result as a one time user customised result, in whichever format is convenient for the customer, copyrighted of course.

Ming isn't worried about living that long.

Naturally, such an engine won't use the garbage pile that is Wikipedia as a source, although I guess we cannot rule out, in one delicious irony, that it will mine Wikipedia for source metadata, most likely as a one time dump to the cloud.

Ming is pretty sure they will try to start from WP, because after all Siri and Cortana are already using it, and presumably for the same obvious reason: it's free. Most people won't be able to tell the difference, or because they may be expected to pay for it won't use it, not when they have other sources tuned to their prejudices beamed directly into their brains for free.

No Ming, they don't. The material is not free, it's manly copyright protected material in the rest of the world. I am sure they don't make this legal blunder twice! And yes, I am the one who found this out! Why do you think I am SanFanBanned?

[Ming]

It's free until someone makes them pay for it, and thus far, nobody has.

[iii]

Google is the key in this story. At the moment Google dumps Wikipedia, it's there end.

I agree that this was the precariousness of Wikipedia from maybe ten or even five years ago, but the value of Wikipedia to money-havers is increasingly that it can be scraped for AI. It will continue to be propped up by other interested groups (Amazon, Apple, etc.) as a means to do crowdsourced Watson-ish type stuff.

[iii]

Ming's limited vision prevents him from seeing the doomsday scenario that was recently spoken of on this very board. It is the day Google/Apple/Amazon/Tesla/KFC switches on its AI engine, the one designed to process natural language queries inputted as voice or as a last resort, text, then examines a host of reliable sources in the cloud, all linked up via metadata, and presents the result as a one time user customised result, in whichever format is convenient for the customer, copyrighted of course.

Oh yes, like all those reliable journals and authoritative sources as they are going to magically figure out how to sift the wheat from the chaff....yeah right..

You write like someone who's never been to university and imagines it to be full of sooper dooper smart people who will all magically appear and facilitate this process...

sigh

You write like someone whose entire reason for being is about to disappear.

No. He's trying to tell you that AI researchers fawn over Wikipedia. They love it.

[Graaf Statler]

It's free until someone makes them pay for it, and thus far, nobody has.

Of course Ming! There is so much free in this world! Bicycles, mobile phones, stuff in shops, you only have to take it with you, you don't have to pay for it, that's the way we all do in Holland. Just walk in a street, a shop, and take what ever you want. And that makes Holland to such a wonderful country! Drugs are free, everything is free here!

It is not any problem if someone from America comes over, takes what he or she wants, take it home, and give it for free away! What a country, Holland, isn't it? And in Germany, France and all other the country's of the EU it's the same!

[Graaf Statler]

Google is the key in this story. At the moment Google dumps Wikipedia, it's there end.

I agree that this was the precariousness of Wikipedia from maybe ten or even five years ago, but the value of Wikipedia to money-havers is increasingly that it can be scraped for AI. It will continue to be propped up by other interested groups (Amazon, Apple, etc.) as a means to do crowdsourced Watson-ish type stuff.

Nobody is interested in stolen stuff, nobody in the world, that is a pink dream, It's a illusion.

[iii]

after all Siri and Cortana are already using it

And Alexa. And Bixby. And Viv. And....

[iii]

Google is the key in this story. At the moment Google dumps Wikipedia, it's there end.

I agree that this was the precariousness of Wikipedia from maybe ten or even five years ago, but the value of Wikipedia to money-havers is increasingly that it can be scraped for AI. It will continue to be propped up by other interested groups (Amazon, Apple, etc.) as a means to do crowdsourced Watson-ish type stuff.

Nobody is interested in stolen stuff, nobody in the world, that is a pink dream, It's a illusion.

Pink dream? I may regret asking this, but what is the reference?

[Graaf Statler]

Google is the key in this story. At the moment Google dumps Wikipedia, it's there end.

I agree that this was the precariousness of Wikipedia from maybe ten or even five years ago, but the value of Wikipedia to money-havers is increasingly that it can be scraped for AI. It will continue to be propped up by other interested groups (Amazon, Apple, etc.) as a means to do crowdsourced Watson-ish type stuff.

Nobody is interested in stolen stuff, nobody in the world, that is a pink dream, It's a illusion.

Pink dream? I may regret asking this, but what is the reference?

That is what we say in Holland if someone doesn't see the reality, he or she is wearing pink glasses. Because it is rediciles what Ming is claiming, copyright infringements are prohibited in the EU, and can even be a crime! You can end up in jail! How can any firm in the world use Wikipedia stuff, even if it is for free?

[iii]

Google is the key in this story. At the moment Google dumps Wikipedia, it's there end.

I agree that this was the precariousness of Wikipedia from maybe ten or even five years ago, but the value of Wikipedia to money-havers is increasingly that it can be scraped for AI. It will continue to be propped up by other interested groups (Amazon, Apple, etc.) as a means to do crowdsourced Watson-ish type stuff.

Nobody is interested in stolen stuff, nobody in the world, that is a pink dream, It's a illusion.

Pink dream? I may regret asking this, but what is the reference?

That is what we say in Holland if someone doesn't see the reality, he or she is wearing pink glasses. Because it is rediciles what Ming is claiming, copyright infringements are prohibited in the EU, and can even be a crime! You can end up in jail! How can any firm in the world use Wikipedia stuff, even if it is for free?

Okay, whew. At the risk of calling attention to something that probably shouldn't be called attention to, I'll just say don't look up "pink dream" in urban dictionary. In English, I have usually heard the descriptor "rose-tinted glasses" for whatever reason without reference to dreaming.

There is a simple work-around for AI people worried about copyright infringements. I use software all the time to detect plagiarism. If the match is high enough, you just exclude the content. Some volunteers on Wikipedia use the same, but, of course, the incentive at Wikipedia is not to automate the process since it will reduce content. You just turn up the detection threshold higher for your favorite AI device and the problem goes away.

That the AI makers messed up when they first started out is not surprising, but they'll figure it out.

[Graaf Statler]

Google is the key in this story. At the moment Google dumps Wikipedia, it's there end.

I agree that this was the precariousness of Wikipedia from maybe ten or even five years ago, but the value of Wikipedia to money-havers is increasingly that it can be scraped for AI. It will continue to be propped up by other interested groups (Amazon, Apple, etc.) as a means to do crowdsourced Watson-ish type stuff.

Nobody is interested in stolen stuff, nobody in the world, that is a pink dream, It's a illusion.

Pink dream? I may regret asking this, but what is the reference?

That is what we say in Holland if someone doesn't see the reality, he or she is wearing pink glasses. Because it is rediciles what Ming is claiming, copyright infringements are prohibited in the EU, and can even be a crime! You can end up in jail! How can any firm in the world use Wikipedia stuff, even if it is for free?

Okay, whew. At the risk of calling attention to something that probably shouldn't be called attention to, I'll just say don't look up "pink dream" in urban dictionary. In English, I have usually heard the descriptor "rose-tinted glasses" for whatever reason without reference to dreaming.

There is a simple work-around for AI people worried about copyright infringements. I use software all the time to detect plagiarism. If the match is high enough, you just exclude the content. Some volunteers on Wikipedia use the same, but, of course, the incentive at Wikipedia is not to automate the process since it will reduce content. You just turn up the detection threshold higher for your favorite AI device and the problem goes away.

That the AI makers messed up when they first started out is not surprising, but they'll figure it out.

You outside Europa have no idea! We are talking about fraud, it's fraud in Europe. If you are unlucky, if it's considered as copyright fraud, and you don't do anything, because there are a two big police officers nocking on your door and take you away! And otherwise a lawyer send you a bill you have to pay. You can't fix anything, one screenshot is enough! You have no idea were you are talking about!

[iii]

There is a simple work-around for AI people worried about copyright infringements. I use software all the time to detect plagiarism. If the match is high enough, you just exclude the content. Some volunteers on Wikipedia use the same, but, of course, the incentive at Wikipedia is not to automate the process since it will reduce content. You just turn up the detection threshold higher for your favorite AI device and the problem goes away.

That the AI makers messed up when they first started out is not surprising, but they'll figure it out.

You outside Europa have no idea! We are talking about fraud, it's fraud in Europe. If you are unlucky, if it's considered as copyright fraud, and you don't do anything, because there are a two big police officers nocking on your door and take you away! You have no idea were you are talking about!

I think you need to calm down and try to understand what other people are telling you. No one is going to be arrested in the EU for copyright fraud if they elimintate all the copyrighted content from their software.

[Graaf Statler]

There is a simple work-around for AI people worried about copyright infringements. I use software all the time to detect plagiarism. If the match is high enough, you just exclude the content. Some volunteers on Wikipedia use the same, but, of course, the incentive at Wikipedia is not to automate the process since it will reduce content. You just turn up the detection threshold higher for your favorite AI device and the problem goes away.

That the AI makers messed up when they first started out is not surprising, but they'll figure it out.

You outside Europa have no idea! We are talking about fraud, it's fraud in Europe. If you are unlucky, if it's considered as copyright fraud, and you don't do anything, because there are a two big police officers nocking on your door and take you away! You have no idea were you are talking about!

I think you need to calm down and try to understand what other people are telling you. No one is going to be arrested in the EU for copyright fraud if they elimintate all the copyrighted content from their software.

But what didn't happen till now doesn't give any warranty it will never happend! It is possible! And many, many people have had very high claims in Holland to pay for copyright infringements! Whit as proof only one screenshot. And in Germany, if you download one illegal song, you have to pay 1200 Euro, you get a letter in your mailbox in a few weeks! But do I get you right? There are firms who are distribute illegale software and other stuff in America? Because there is where it's about.

[iii]

I think you need to calm down and try to understand what other people are telling you. No one is going to be arrested in the EU for copyright fraud if they elimintate all the copyrighted content from their software.

But what didn't happen till now doesn't give any warranty it will never happend! It is possible! And many, many people have had very high claims in Holland to pay for copyright infringements! But do I get you right? There are firms who are distribute illegale software and other stuff in America? Because there is where it's about.

Okay, this is the last time I'm going to try here.

(1) I am in total agreement with you that copyright fraud is a big deal where you are and that the WMF hosts content that could end them up in very hot water.
(2) I do not doubt that this problem will not necessarily go away. People who use WMF content will need to do something about this if they want to avoid the kind of terrible outcomes to which you are alluding.
(3) The content distributed by the WMF is free to fork. Let's take a worse case scenario: the EU shuts down the WMF, Jimmy Wales becomes an Assange-esque fugitive from justice, the website is removed from DNS, etc. Even if this were to happen, we would all just migrate over to the next repository that survived. All of the commentary here is maintained. The question still remains, "WHAT Day?"

[Graaf Statler]

I think you need to calm down and try to understand what other people are telling you. No one is going to be arrested in the EU for copyright fraud if they elimintate all the copyrighted content from their software.

But what didn't happen till now doesn't give any warranty it will never happend! It is possible! And many, many people have had very high claims in Holland to pay for copyright infringements! But do I get you right? There are firms who are distribute illegale software and other stuff in America? Because there is where it's about.

Okay, this is the last time I'm going to try here.

(1) I am in total agreement with you that copyright fraud is a big deal where you are and that the WMF hosts content that could end them up in very hot water.
(2) I do not doubt that this problem will not necessarily go away. People who use WMF content will need to do something about this if they want to avoid the kind of terrible outcomes to which you are alluding.
(3) The content distributed by the WMF is free to fork. Let's take a worse case scenario: the EU shuts down the WMF, Jimmy Wales becomes an Assange-esque fugitive from justice, the website is removed from DNS, etc. Even if this were to happen, we would all just migrate over to the next repository that survived. All of the commentary here is maintained. The question still remains, "WHAT Day?"

Vey good question. Because, that could happend and is indeed the worst case scenario. But also a realistic scenario, Renée pointed this out before. And there is no way to fix this problem BECAUSE of that free license, the information is spread all over the internet in all these years. So, where does this stop? It's the ultimate Hotel California situation, and maybe if I had understand that from the first moment I had kept my mouth shut. But the way they started to tread me didn't make that very attractieve.
"WHAT day" is the moment someone light a small corner somewhere, can be anywhere. By informing the EU, by making a complaint by the EU about the Google dominate, by a copyvio claim in Europe, by reporting it to the police, the authorities, or maybe they if the authorities are reading here and are thinking, heeeee, that Statler is complet right! Because if someone does, the complete fire pyre lights at once, and burns down to the ground. No one can stop that fire, because there is no way to stop that.

Because, and that is the whole point, I couldn't believe I was right myself, and THAT was the reason Whaledad and I started to ask to experts if I was right. To work on on WQ-NL, It was by accident I fond this out.
A while ago I got a email from the Wikischim, Whaledad has read it. You don't know what a huge damage you have made!! My answer was, why are you blaming me for the fact there are red traffic lights in the world? It is madness you are writing me.
And, I tell later what happend, Zoloft knows what happend, but believe me, it didn't bring me any good. Nothing, it costed me almost my life. It had been much beter for me to say nothing. That had, retrospective, been better for everybody!

[The Garbage Scow]

Ming is correct.

Their entire model is unsustainable. It should have transitioned to a 2.0 model years ago. 1.0 would have been the crowd-sourcing phase, in which they try to build as much content as possible, while 2.0 would involve hiring a team of actual professional editors, researchers, and writers to focus on improving existing articles and locking them. Lord knows they have plenty of money to do this, especially if they didn't squander so much of it trying to prop up their dying, existing model. I've never seen anyone less agile, less willing to change as needed, and more stubborn refusal to recognize what is needed. Moribund is a good word.

[Graaf Statler]

I don't know if that is what Ming is claiming, but anyhow, you are complete right. They drove in to a dead end, gave full throttle, passed the point of no return, and got that way locked up in a nice looking hotel in California. Now there is no way to fix it anymore.

[Zoloft]

Ming is correct.

Their entire model is unsustainable. It should have transitioned to a 2.0 model years ago. 1.0 would have been the crowd-sourcing phase, in which they try to build as much content as possible, while 2.0 would involve hiring a team of actual professional editors, researchers, and writers to focus on improving existing articles and locking them. Lord knows they have plenty of money to do this, especially if they didn't squander so much of it trying to prop up their dying, existing model. I've never seen anyone less agile, less willing to change as needed, and more stubborn refusal to recognize what is needed. Moribund is a good word.

This is the obvious sensible solution that forever evades the WMF.

[Poetlister]

It might be a salutary exercise to take a thousand WP articles at random and see how many of them could be replaced by existing superior web sources.

You say that like you don't already know the vast majority would be useless unreferenced or poorly referenced junk, as per the Crap Articles thread, or stubs stripped straight from a database with no added value. Many more are basically just rearranged news reports.

I doubt that anyone else here would assert that. True, you can never tell without careful checking whether an article is completely correct, but thst's scarcely the same thing.

[Textnyymi]

26th of December, 2026!

Their entire model is unsustainable. It should have transitioned to a 2.0 model years ago. 1.0 would have been the crowd-sourcing phase, in which they try to build as much content as possible, while 2.0 would involve hiring a team of actual professional editors, researchers, and writers to focus on improving existing articles and locking them. Lord knows they have plenty of money to do this, especially if they didn't squander so much of it trying to prop up their dying, existing model. I've never seen anyone less agile, less willing to change as needed, and more stubborn refusal to recognize what is needed. Moribund is a good word.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5204 ... wikipedia/

[Randy from Boise]

Ming is correct.

Their entire model is unsustainable. It should have transitioned to a 2.0 model years ago. 1.0 would have been the crowd-sourcing phase, in which they try to build as much content as possible, while 2.0 would involve hiring a team of actual professional editors, researchers, and writers to focus on improving existing articles and locking them. Lord knows they have plenty of money to do this, especially if they didn't squander so much of it trying to prop up their dying, existing model. I've never seen anyone less agile, less willing to change as needed, and more stubborn refusal to recognize what is needed. Moribund is a good word.

This is the obvious sensible solution that forever evades the WMF.

Satan's barrister would argue that locking down key articles would dry up the volunteer community, thereby sending the whole lucrative operation into a death spiral.

Careers are being sustained through ever-larger mountains of cash being raked in. Why risk it through change?

RfB

[CrowsNest]

It might be a salutary exercise to take a thousand WP articles at random and see how many of them could be replaced by existing superior web sources.

You say that like you don't already know the vast majority would be useless unreferenced or poorly referenced junk, as per the Crap Articles thread, or stubs stripped straight from a database with no added value. Many more are basically just rearranged news reports.

I doubt that anyone else here would assert that. True, you can never tell without careful checking whether an article is completely correct, but thst's scarcely the same thing.

Why do you think we began noting how many clicks of random article it takes to find a crap one?

[Graaf Statler]

Satan's barrister would argue that locking down key articles would dry up the volunteer community, thereby sending the whole lucrative operation into a death spiral.

Careers are being sustained through ever-larger mountains of cash being raked in. Why risk it through change?

RfB

Hi Satans barrister! A few questions questions:

1) Is the the volunteer community not already into a death spiral?
2) What about the legal site? I mean realistic.
3) Why do you think the world ends up outside America?

[CrowsNest]

Ming is correct.

Their entire model is unsustainable. It should have transitioned to a 2.0 model years ago. 1.0 would have been the crowd-sourcing phase, in which they try to build as much content as possible, while 2.0 would involve hiring a team of actual professional editors, researchers, and writers to focus on improving existing articles and locking them. Lord knows they have plenty of money to do this, especially if they didn't squander so much of it trying to prop up their dying, existing model. I've never seen anyone less agile, less willing to change as needed, and more stubborn refusal to recognize what is needed. Moribund is a good word.

What makes you think such a team wouldn't want to just rip it up and start again from scratch? This is after all how many Wikipedians approach the same task, given the poor quality of what they often have to start with.

[CrowsNest]

Ming's limited vision prevents him from seeing the doomsday scenario that was recently spoken of on this very board. It is the day Google/Apple/Amazon/Tesla/KFC switches on its AI engine, the one designed to process natural language queries inputted as voice or as a last resort, text, then examines a host of reliable sources in the cloud, all linked up via metadata, and presents the result as a one time user customised result, in whichever format is convenient for the customer, copyrighted of course.

Oh yes, like all those reliable journals and authoritative sources as they are going to magically figure out how to sift the wheat from the chaff....yeah right..

You write like someone who's never been to university and imagines it to be full of sooper dooper smart people who will all magically appear and facilitate this process...

sigh

You write like someone whose entire reason for being is about to disappear.

No. He's trying to tell you that AI researchers fawn over Wikipedia. They love it.

I doubt that was his meaning. But its worth noting that this research is often about contextualizing information in vast databases. They love Wikipedia because it's a giant repository of information with some nominal structure and design. That doesn't mean they're in love with it in the sense they see it as the future of knowledge.

[CrowsNest]

Ming's limited vision prevents him from seeing the doomsday scenario that was recently spoken of on this very board. It is the day Google/Apple/Amazon/Tesla/KFC switches on its AI engine, the one designed to process natural language queries inputted as voice or as a last resort, text, then examines a host of reliable sources in the cloud, all linked up via metadata, and presents the result as a one time user customised result, in whichever format is convenient for the customer, copyrighted of course.

Ming isn't worried about living that long.

Naturally, such an engine won't use the garbage pile that is Wikipedia as a source, although I guess we cannot rule out, in one delicious irony, that it will mine Wikipedia for source metadata, most likely as a one time dump to the cloud.

Ming is pretty sure they will try to start from WP, because after all Siri and Cortana are already using it, and presumably for the same obvious reason: it's free. Most people won't be able to tell the difference, or because they may be expected to pay for it won't use it, not when they have other sources tuned to their prejudices beamed directly into their brains for free.

You've got it all backwards. People would know the difference because what differentiates it from the garbage pile would be a key spelling point of the service. Which would likely be free to use, but packaged as part of another paid for service, like mobile.

[Bezdomni]

a key spelling point

Ah, cool, something I know about.

[Ming]

You've got it all backwards. People would know the difference because what differentiates it from the garbage pile would be a key spelling point of the service. Which would likely be free to use, but packaged as part of another paid for service, like mobile.

People on the internet are cheap, and WP already proves all the time that a lot if not most people can't tel the difference.

[Randy from Boise]

Satan's barrister would argue that locking down key articles would dry up the volunteer community, thereby sending the whole lucrative operation into a death spiral.

Careers are being sustained through ever-larger mountains of cash being raked in. Why risk it through change?

RfB

Hi Satans barrister! A few questions questions:

1) Is the the volunteer community not already into a death spiral?
2) What about the legal site? I mean realistic.
3) Why do you think the world ends up outside America?

1. Quantitative evidence indicates that it is not.

2/3. I do not understand your questions.

SB

[Graaf Statler]

Satan's barrister would argue that locking down key articles would dry up the volunteer community, thereby sending the whole lucrative operation into a death spiral.

Careers are being sustained through ever-larger mountains of cash being raked in. Why risk it through change?

RfB

Hi Satans barrister! A few questions questions:

1) Is the the volunteer community not already into a death spiral?
2) What about the legal site? I mean realistic.
3) Why do you think the world ends up outside America?

1. Quantitative evidence indicates that it is not.

2/3. I do not understand your questions.

SB

No Satans barrister, you don't want to understand them. There is of course a huge legal problem with copyright. Just saying, yes, but it is under American law doesn't help you in the rest of the world. Because I don't think there is anyone how want to take the risk to be arrested on the airport if he enters the EU. Because, that is a risk. If it is a big risk I don't know, but it can happend. In the worst case scenario it is a option. The American law don't protect you outside the US.

If I have filed for instance a declaration against James Alexander because of slander and defamation, at the moment he puts one foot on European territory, he is at riks! He is at that moment under the European legal system, not under the American! I think very little people realize themselves this! That is the danger! Slander and defamation, and something is very easy slander and defamation in Europe, is a crime here!

[Ming]

Graaf, Ming has to point out that the second question is rather open-ended, and the third does not form a coherent sentence.

For all your going on about European copyright, the thing is that the US has never, from the earliest days, respected European (and especially British) copyright to the degree that those holding them wanted. Ming cannot see that changing, except to the degree that terms keep getting extended so that the big American media companies don't lose their copyrights. A European attitude is never going to be forced on the US; copyright treaties will die first. WP is located in the US, and that will always be enough protection.

[Graaf Statler]

Graaf, Ming has to point out that the second question is rather open-ended, and the third does not form a coherent sentence.

For all your going on about European copyright, the thing is that the US has never, from the earliest days, respected European (and especially British) copyright to the degree that those holding them wanted. Ming cannot see that changing, except to the degree that terms keep getting extended so that the big American media companies don't lose their copyrights. A European attitude is never going to be forced on the US; copyright treaties will die first. WP is located in the US, and that will always be enough protection.

Ming is 100% wrong! You are only protected in the USA, not outside the USA, and that is the probelm. You can't can't not distribute European protected material outside the USA, the problem is the international character of Wikipedia, they even use foreign languages. We found out in Europe WP is one more than one legal system, because of that. The server is here in Haarlem! There is a paid chapter here. What American site! It is a international site in a legal way in Europe!

[Ming]

Look, they are protected in the USA, so Ming cannot be "100% wrong". Waiting for the Eurolawyers to arrive and shut things down has had its chance, and however wrong WP is about this, Ming cannot see that changing.

[Graaf Statler]

Google had the same problem, the got a fine of 2 billion euro. Why? Because they didn't respect the European laws! There is the problem! No, they don't come to America, this is Europe you know? We handle our business at home, in our own legal system.

[The Garbage Scow]

Ming is correct.

Their entire model is unsustainable. It should have transitioned to a 2.0 model years ago. 1.0 would have been the crowd-sourcing phase, in which they try to build as much content as possible, while 2.0 would involve hiring a team of actual professional editors, researchers, and writers to focus on improving existing articles and locking them. Lord knows they have plenty of money to do this, especially if they didn't squander so much of it trying to prop up their dying, existing model. I've never seen anyone less agile, less willing to change as needed, and more stubborn refusal to recognize what is needed. Moribund is a good word.

What makes you think such a team wouldn't want to just rip it up and start again from scratch? This is after all how many Wikipedians approach the same task, given the poor quality of what they often have to start with.

Some of them may have wanted to do so, but having worked as an actual paid professional book editor I can tell you that most of the time it doesn't work that way. The authors write, the editor reshapes into a usable, readable product. Sometimes that means re-writes, sometimes it means simple proofreading and fact checking. Since the WMF is so far up their own backside that they can't see, we'll never know what would have happened.

[Randy from Boise]

Satan's barrister would argue that locking down key articles would dry up the volunteer community, thereby sending the whole lucrative operation into a death spiral.

Careers are being sustained through ever-larger mountains of cash being raked in. Why risk it through change?

RfB

Hi Satans barrister! A few questions questions:

1) Is the the volunteer community not already into a death spiral?
2) What about the legal site? I mean realistic.
3) Why do you think the world ends up outside America?

1. Quantitative evidence indicates that it is not.

2/3. I do not understand your questions.

SB

No Satans barrister, you don't want to understand them. There is of course a huge legal problem with copyright. Just saying, yes, but it is under American law doesn't help you in the rest of the world. Because I don't think there is anyone how want to take the risk to be arrested on the airport if he enters the EU. Because, that is a risk. If it is a big risk I don't know, but it can happend. In the worst case scenario it is a option. The American law don't protect you outside the US.

If I have filed for instance a declaration against James Alexander because of slander and defamation, at the moment he puts one foot on European territory, he is at riks! He is at that moment under the European legal system, not under the American! I think very little people realize themselves this! That is the danger! Slander and defamation, and something is very easy slander and defamation in Europe, is a crime here!

No, I am having difficulty with your English sentence construction and honestly do not understand the questions being asked.

tim