Who owns Wikipedia?, I am not a lawyer Options

[Peter Damian]

I've heard claims here occasionally that Wikipedia could be sold off. Is that possible? Who actually owns it? What is it they actually own? Could anyone get their hands on it and make a ton of money from ? What would they be getting their hands on?

[gomi]

Legally, the Wikimedia Foundation (or whatever it is called) owns Wikipedia.

Owning Wikipedia means these things:

1) Owning the trademarks, domain names, logos, and assorted intellectual property associated with Wikipedia and its related sites;
2) Owns the right to make agreements of any sort, including exclusive ones, surrounding and affecting its online systems and services;
3) Owns the right (subject to the limitations of a not-for-profit organization) to dispose of (by sale, license, or other agreement) any of its assets, including (potentially) any of the Wikipedia sites and related marks and materials.

This is not an exhaustive list. The Wikimedia Foundation would be within its right to sell the Wikipedia site to a for-profit company in exchange for a revenue stream. That for-profit company could shut down all user accounts and install advertising if they wanted to. The resulting revenue stream would (for a time) be very substantial. The Wikimedia Foundation would need to use the proceeds from such a sale for its charitable purpose.

There are potential complications if such a sale is construed as disposing of "substantially all" of its assets, or if it didn't get a fair market value for the asset, but those are details.

I'm not saying this is likely to happen, but it is all legally possible.

[Peter Damian]

Legally, the Wikimedia Foundation (or whatever it is called) owns Wikipedia.

Owning Wikipedia means these things:

1) Owning the trademarks, domain names, logos, and assorted intellectual property associated with Wikipedia and its related sites;
2) Owns the right to make agreements of any sort, including exclusive ones, surrounding and affecting its online systems and services;
3) Owns the right (subject to the limitations of a not-for-profit organization) to dispose of (by sale, license, or other agreement) any of its assets, including (potentially) any of the Wikipedia sites and related marks and materials.

This is not an exhaustive list. The Wikimedia Foundation would be within its right to sell the Wikipedia site to a for-profit company in exchange for a revenue stream. That for-profit company could shut down all user accounts and install advertising if they wanted to. The resulting revenue stream would (for a time) be very substantial. The Wikimedia Foundation would need to use the proceeds from such a sale for its charitable purpose.

There are potential complications if such a sale is construed as disposing of "substantially all" of its assets, or if it didn't get a fair market value for the asset, but those are details.

I'm not saying this is likely to happen, but it is all legally possible.

My emphasis. The user accounts would be the first to go. Can I buy all this outright or am I, as it were, leasing it?

Who makes the decision? The trustees? If I were to write each of them a large cheque, would they vote the right way? Everyone like money.

The Wikimedia Foundation would need to use the proceeds from such a sale for its charitable purpose.

Yes they can expand the WMF brand in other countries and to that bringing the sum of human knowledge crap with all that money.

[edit] Just to make it clear I am not completely stupid (only a bit). I do realise there are two aspects to this transaction. (1) To pay off the various lowlifes in charge of this mess to do the right thing. This would have to be very discrete and secret. (2) To pay the WMF a reasonable value for the assets in question, i.e. the brand, the servers, all that rubbish. I would go to a large bank, Goldmans are reputable and honest and have experience in this kind of thing, and they would lend me a large amount of money to do this (hopefully not too large, but this depends on (1) above). Then the income stream from the advertising pays the bank debt, as well as a handsome profit. I would hire all the professional staff from proper encyclopedias so there was a proper editorial board. They would delete all the shit and pornography and Pokemon. Then I would have really done a good job in bringing the sum of all human knowledge to everyone on the planet, and make a few bucks for myself.

Does anyone know who I would approach? I would leave a message on jimbo's page but not sure he anything to do with it. Also needs to be discrete.

Anyone from the WMF reading this please feel free to PM me and we can talk business, absolute discretion assured.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[thekohser]

Does anyone know who I would approach? I would leave a message on jimbo's page but not sure he anything to do with it. Also needs to be discrete.

Anyone from the WMF reading this please feel free to PM me and we can talk business, absolute discretion assured.

Peter, I am willing to credit each and every one of the WMF board members with enough intelligence and street smarts to know better than to go brokering some kind of "discrete" deal with someone who's trying to coordinate it by publicly asking questions he doesn't know the answer to, and who imagines "leaving a message on Jimbo's page" might have any favorable impact on the success of the highly volatile and risky gambit that you propose.

What happens when you line up 45% of the board, but then the next trustee you try to get to follow suit goes to the Associated Press and Slashdot with the whole story?

You know I have every respect for you, but you're sounding a bit bonkers here. Are you drinking large mugs of mead, or something?

[Peter Damian]

Does anyone know who I would approach? I would leave a message on jimbo's page but not sure he anything to do with it. Also needs to be discrete.

Anyone from the WMF reading this please feel free to PM me and we can talk business, absolute discretion assured.

Peter, I am willing to credit each and every one of the WMF board members with enough intelligence and street smarts to know better than to go brokering some kind of "discrete" deal with someone who's trying to coordinate it by publicly asking questions he doesn't know the answer to, and who imagines "leaving a message on Jimbo's page" might have any favorable impact on the success of the highly volatile and risky gambit that you propose.

What happens when you line up 45% of the board, but then the next trustee you try to get to follow suit goes to the Associated Press and Slashdot with the whole story?

You know I have every respect for you, but you're sounding a bit bonkers here. Are you drinking large mugs of mead, or something?

Well I try to signal humour or irony by saying things that are so obviously absurd that no one will possibly think I am serious. Didn't the bit about the PM ring a bell?

Oh well.

[thekohser]

Well I try to signal humour or irony by saying things that are so obviously absurd that no one will possibly think I am serious. Didn't the bit about the PM ring a bell?

Oh well.

You didn't go "over the top" quite enough. I thought the whole opening salvo of this thread was a bit ill-formed. That wasn't part of the slapstick, too, was it?

[Peter Damian]

Well I try to signal humour or irony by saying things that are so obviously absurd that no one will possibly think I am serious. Didn't the bit about the PM ring a bell?

Oh well.

You didn't go "over the top" quite enough. I thought the whole opening salvo of this thread was a bit ill-formed. That wasn't part of the slapstick, too, was it?

Well there was a serious point to it too.