What is the life expectancy of Wikipedia?, What is the expiration date on your brain? Options

What is the life expectancy of Wikipedia?

1) It has a scandal-prone structure, from the Board of Trustees right down to "anyone can edit" — which includes an anon editing an article on Seigenthaler that sat there for four months.

2) The person most closely associated with Wikipedia loves his celebrity status but prefers to spin away over Wikipedia's problems rather than deal with them.

3) The social networking model, from Wikipedia, to Orkut in Brazil, to Napster, Grokster, and YouTube and copyright, is headed for a more restrictive legal environment.

4) To the extent that any sort of wiki-type "encyclopedia" survives, it will probably have to go with non-anonymous editing. Examples are Citizendium, and Google's Knol.

5) The funds from donations will not be sufficient to sustain the needs of the Wikimedia Foundation. If Google is serious about Knol, it may even be too late to start showing ads on Wikipedia. Google is not likely to rank Wikipedia well if it competes with Knol.

6) The mainstream media is losing its infatuation with Wikipedia.

I give it three more years.

Running out of funds to support the server farm is probably what will kill Wikipedia. They can dispense with all paid staff with the possible exception of the guy who tends the server farm and keeps the operating system running.

I hate to disappoint you, but the GFDL (almost)
ensures WP's immortality. Even supposing the WMF
were to crash and burn, the someone would copy
the whole thing elsewhere and continue on, albeit
quite likely with a different management, at least.

I give it three more years.

Daniel, I don't think it will be a "life" versus "death" sort of situation. I honestly believe (barring an enormous court- or government-ordered shut-down), that Wikipedia.org will exist as an encyclopedia for a long, long time. However, what we can hope for is that it begins to resemble the recent history of Dmoz.org.

That is, it will likely end not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Greg

I give it three more years.

Two and a half, tops.

The Eva of Wiki-Destruction

The English Wiki it is exploding
Flame wars flarin' and sockpuppets loadin'
Your good enough to donate, but not secret list knowin'
ArbCom useless, ain't no use in voting
Even the disgraced COO pool has got bodies floating

and...tell me over and over and over again, my friend
You don't believe we're on the Eve of Destruction

Don't you understand what Brandt is trying to say
Can't you feel the fear Armed Blowfish's feeling today
If the ban button is pushed, there's no runnin' away
There'll be no encylopedia to save, with wiki in a grave
Take a look around it's bound to scare ya Danny boy.

and...tell me over and over and over again, my friend
You don't believe we're on the Eve of Destruction

Think of all hate there is on IRC channels
Than take a look around at Jimbo denies all the scandals
You may leave for a four day wiki break
But when you return it still the same old place
The admin poundin' drums, Essay and Slim in Disgrace
You oversight the dead, leaving not a trace
You hate your fellow editor, don't forget good faith

and...tell me over and over and over again, my friend
You don't believe we're on the Eve of Destruction

---apologies to Barry McGuire

What is the life expectancy of Wikipedia?

1) It has a scandal-prone structure, from the Board of Trustees right down to "anyone can edit" — which includes an anon editing an article on Seigenthaler that sat there for four months.

2) The person most closely associated with Wikipedia loves his celebrity status but prefers to spin away over Wikipedia's problems rather than deal with them.

3) The social networking model, from Wikipedia, to Orkut in Brazil, to Napster, Grokster, and YouTube and copyright, is headed for a more restrictive legal environment.

4) To the extent that any sort of wiki-type "encyclopedia" survives, it will probably have to go with non-anonymous editing. Examples are Citizendium, and Google's Knol.

5) The funds from donations will not be sufficient to sustain the needs of the Wikimedia Foundation. If Google is serious about Knol, it may even be too late to start showing ads on Wikipedia. Google is not likely to rank Wikipedia well if it competes with Knol.

6) The mainstream media is losing its infatuation with Wikipedia.

I give it three more years.

I believe you are spot on with your bullet points, Daniel, however, greatly optimistic/conservative with your timeline. I look at it from a legal initiative and thesis; ergo, the speed at which the model must change is probably closer to 12 months. Having said that, a sea change will take place within 18 months; most likely in the form of a merger and / or takeover of the existing portfolio of articles.

I fully expect KNOL to be the most likely candidate for the beneficial ownership of the project. Google has the best math and the capital to do things right; I believe they will step up with either Apple or Microsoft, or both, and make it a whole package for all lifestyles: a social and educational platform. They will staff up professionals to take over certain accounts / articles and set them up as projects.

The beginning is the end is the beginning, again.

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom: Mon 24th December 2007, 4:35am

I hate to disappoint you, but the GFDL (almost)
ensures WP's immortality. Even supposing the WMF
were to crash and burn, the someone would copy
the whole thing elsewhere and continue on, albeit
quite likely with a different management, at least.

That's kinda the point (nevermind the fact that the GFDL is probably not enforceable). Any sane new management wouldn't emulate the status quo. They probably wouldn't copy the many shit articles, and they certainly wouldn't harass expertise while putting valuable content into the hands of anyone with a browser and a POV.

Why isn't GDFL enforceable??? It's not like someone can revoke their GDFL status.


Also, which will survive longer: Wikipedia or Conservapedia?

Why isn't GDFL enforceable??? It's not like someone can revoke their GDFL status.

No one can revoke, but the things that the GFDL purports to do (require disclosure of authorship, including the same GFDL license in derivative works) are probably unenforceable. This is a problem with open source licenses generally--they haven't been definitively tested under US law. It's especially an issue for Wikipedia because of the GFDL's wacky terms and frankly poor disclosure of the agreement (compared to the clickwrap that usually accompanies GPL programs).

Insofar that the license works, they work through contract law (not copyright infringement), and so damages would have to be proved for recovery, but because the numerous authors retain their copyright, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have standing to sue. Contributers would have to sue.

Not a big deal, perhaps, but if one wanted to modify a Wikipedia article, but refuse to release it under the GFDL, there's a good chance no one could do anything about it.


I wouldn't be too surprised if Conservapedia outlives the Wikipedia Foundation, and I would bet money that fancruft wikis will survive.

This post has been edited by One: Wed 26th December 2007, 6:29am

Why isn't GDFL enforceable??? It's not like someone can revoke their GDFL status.

No one can revoke, but the things that the GFDL purports to do (require disclosure of authorship, including the same GFDL license in derivative works) are probably unenforceable. This is a problem with open source licenses generally--they haven't been definitively tested under US law. It's especially an issue for Wikipedia because of the GFDL's wacky terms and frankly poor disclosure of the agreement (compared to the clickwrap that usually accompanies GPL programs).

Insofar that the license works, they work through contract law (not copyright infringement), and so damages would have to be proved for recovery, but because the numerous authors retain their copyright, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have standing to sue. Contributers would have to sue.

Not a big deal, perhaps, but if one wanted to modify a Wikipedia article, but refuse to release it under the GFDL, there's a good chance no one could do anything about it.


I wouldn't be too surprised if Conservapedia outlives the Wikipedia Foundation, and I would bet money that fancruft wikis will survive.

Welcome to Wikipedia Review, One. I don't know who you are, but after reading four short posts by you, I'm wishing we could clone you about 20 times and spread you all over this Board under various screen names.

Not a big deal, perhaps, but if one wanted to modify a Wikipedia article, but refuse to release it under the GFDL, there's a good chance no one could do anything about it.

I don't see how this could happen, because under WP's terms, by clicking on submit, you are effectively releasing everything under GFDL. It's on every edit page for everything.

So, my question is this: is there any way that you can contribute to WP without de facto releasing your contributions under whatever flavour of the month license they've decided to use?

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Wed 26th December 2007, 12:20pm

Not a big deal, perhaps, but if one wanted to modify a Wikipedia article, but refuse to release it under the GFDL, there's a good chance no one could do anything about it.

I don't see how this could happen, because under WP's terms, by clicking on submit, you are effectively releasing everything under GFDL. It's on every edit page for everything.

So, my question is this: is there any way that you can contribute to WP without de facto releasing your contributions under whatever flavour of the month license they've decided to use?

Yes.

On any Wikipedia page, whether it's a talk page or in article space, "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*." But you can edit Wikipedia without ever seeing the normal edit page which displays the message. I did it 50 times last night.

I don't know if such a technicality would ever hold up in a court of law, of course. It's rather academic, I suppose, since the license itself hasn't really been tested.

Not a big deal, perhaps, but if one wanted to modify a Wikipedia article, but refuse to release it under the GFDL, there's a good chance no one could do anything about it.

I don't see how this could happen, because under WP's terms, by clicking on submit, you are effectively releasing everything under GFDL. It's on every edit page for everything.

So, my question is this: is there any way that you can contribute to WP without de facto releasing your contributions under whatever flavour of the month license they've decided to use?

I believe that One was suggesting that somebody could modify a Wikipedia article, then copy it to their own website or print it in their own publication, expressly refusing to release it under the GFDL, and just wait for the lawsuit that never materializes.

That's just my interpretation of what One was saying, but I'm biased, since I run a website (Wikipedia Review.com) that has occasionally copied older content from Wikipedia and re-released it (under terms of the GFDL, but I've considered doing otherwise as a test case).

Greg

If someone then copied your non-GFDL derivative adaptation, it would be up to you to obtain and enforce an injunction against them. Good luck.

Why isn't GDFL enforceable??? It's not like someone can revoke their GDFL status.

No one can revoke, but the things that the GFDL purports to do (require disclosure of authorship, including the same GFDL license in derivative works) are probably unenforceable. This is a problem with open source licenses generally--they haven't been definitively tested under US law. It's especially an issue for Wikipedia because of the GFDL's wacky terms and frankly poor disclosure of the agreement (compared to the clickwrap that usually accompanies GPL programs).

Insofar that the license works, they work through contract law (not copyright infringement), and so damages would have to be proved for recovery, but because the numerous authors retain their copyright, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have standing to sue. Contributers would have to sue.

Not a big deal, perhaps, but if one wanted to modify a Wikipedia article, but refuse to release it under the GFDL, there's a good chance no one could do anything about it.


I wouldn't be too surprised if Conservapedia outlives the Wikipedia Foundation, and I would bet money that fancruft wikis will survive.

Welcome to WR ,One. Be careful with confusing licenses with contracts. It is a whole different body of law and people will who don't know much about it know that they can whack your knuckles with a big stick for saying it is about contract. You are never the less close to the mark. GFDL might be enforceable. The problem is the usual reasons for enforcement, the possibility of recovering damages sufficient to justify the considerable expense and effort of bringing an action is seriously eroded. You may be right about WP not having standing to sue, as it is probably best understood as chain of licensee contributors with WP as a mere ISP. Of course maybe WP is "copying" and extending it's own license every time an article is refreshed in someone's browser. This is a very confused area.

Yes, too, I believe many minor projects will out live WP proper.

I believe that One was suggesting that somebody could modify a Wikipedia article, then copy it to their own website or print it in their own publication, expressly refusing to release it under the GFDL, and just wait for the lawsuit that never materializes.

For random typo fixing and the like, it's unlikely anyone will sue. A few edits here and there, spread over hours and hours of one's time, is probably a bad idea if protecting one's property is important. To that extent, WP:OWN probably extends off-wiki as well.

However, more involved contributions -- probably the top of the list would be photographs and graphics/animations -- we are in the range of small software development in terms of time investment. More importantly, ownership is unambiguous. It's likely that if the GFDL was transgressed, and a suit could follow, and I would expect the plaintiff to prevail easily.

The real issue is that most of the people contributing to WP, or write GPL software, can't really afford the cost of a lawsuit. But I wouldn't bet much on this, as the FSF is supposedly always on the lookout for a test case.

Welcome to Wikipedia Review, One. I don't know who you are, but after reading four short posts by you, I'm wishing we could clone you about 20 times and spread you all over this Board under various screen names.

Hear, hear. Yes, you could use Two, Three, Four ...

Wikipedia's probably going to live at least for another 2 or 3 decades, courtesy of GFDL and Answers.com and similar sites. Wikimedia Foundation and the website itself wont.

This post has been edited by cyofee: Wed 26th December 2007, 9:14pm

I believe that One was suggesting that somebody could modify a Wikipedia article, then copy it to their own website or print it in their own publication, expressly refusing to release it under the GFDL, and just wait for the lawsuit that never materializes.

That's just my interpretation of what One was saying, but I'm biased, since I run a website (Wikipedia Review.com) that has occasionally copied older content from Wikipedia and re-released it (under terms of the GFDL, but I've considered doing otherwise as a test case).

Greg

Yeah, that's what I mean. There's no chance someone could revoke their contributions, but there is a chance someone could take an articles and say "GFDL, ef that, this is my article now [making some substantial revisions]." There's a huge body of literature related to the GPL, but it's believed that it would be enforceable because of the clear notice in the source code, clickwrap, ect. There is a distinction between licenses and contract, but no court of law has resolved it, and some legal scholarship suggests that if GPL fails as a license, it may still be enforced through contractual promissory estoppal. Lawrence Rosen reaches this conclusion in this book. See Sapna Kumar, "Enforcing the GNU GPL," 2006 U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol'y 1.

What makes Wikipedia less likely to be protected is the enormous number of "copyright owners"--many having trivial non-copyrightable contributions--for every article and the fact that only these owners would have standing to sue. This is different from software, where the contributions of certain individuals are usually more significant.

That, and the wacky terms of the GFDL, which Wikipedia itself arguably doesn't obey, as when bots merge categories and list the top six numerical contributors. GFDL says you can do this cases where there are many contributers, but numerical edits seem wrong: the authors should be determined by the amount of content contributed, not the number of vandalism reverts. Some of the articles I wrote years ago are hardly changed, even though I've only edited them a couple of times since--I wouldn't be one of the top editors of those. In fact, the project treats vandalism like non-contributions and thinks nothing of deleting them from history. Consider also cut-and-paste moves, which are apparent GFDL violations by being derivative of other authors, but not listing their contributions. Wikipedia has never taken a clear position about whether history even counts as the GFDL-required "history." Finally, the copyright ownership of IP addresses seems at least a little dubious.

But yeah, this is not legal advice, and I certainly didn't join to engage in shaky legal speculation.

Thanks for the welcome. I'm just sick of how Wikipedia's going. The idiotic COO mess suggests that anyone who gives money the Essjayesque WMF is a damn fool. I don't understand why I should contribute any more effort to this trainwreck.

EDIT: Although it's a flattering suggestion, I am not Giano.

This post has been edited by One: Wed 26th December 2007, 10:35pm

EDIT: Although it's a flattering suggestion, I am not Giano.

If not, you should have played coy, and ALLOWED everyone here hoist you on their virtual shoulders and parade you around the web.