Seth Finkelstein : Infothought, Wikipedia the nonprofit as PR for Wikia the commercial ad-farm Options

[Newsfood]

Seth Finkelstein : Infothought

Wikipedia the nonprofit as PR for Wikia the commercial ad-farm

"Another day, another gem of how Wikipedia is used to promote the digital-sharecropping of Wikia, this time from a sports site ESPN interview:"

[Carruthers]

Seth Finkelstein : Infothought

Wikipedia the nonprofit as PR for Wikia the commercial ad-farm

"Another day, another gem of how Wikipedia is used to promote the digital-sharecropping of Wikia, this time from a sports site ESPN interview:"

Seth makes some really good points here :

Note the pattern in those responses (Wikipedia ... Wikia) - how they "bridge" from Wikipedia, the nonprofit project to Wikia, the commercial $14million venture-capital funded business with an intrinsic motivation of making investors rich (though profitability is a problem). That is, Wikipedia is presented as some sort of prototype or proof-of-concept for a system where a few digital-sharecropping site owners rake in big bucks from massive unpaid labor.

A very good comment :

...It seems Wikia, the spawned 'religion/church', is similarly seguing a pretence of jurisdiction and ownership of Wikipedia based public works - no doubt relying upon popular recognition of the divinity that entitles them to do so.

The technique of seguing as a means of inducing possession must be taught as a reliable PR trick somewhere?

This post has been edited by Carruthers: Fri 29th August 2008, 2:48pm

[Rootology]

Don't forget that Wikia is NOT Wikipedia per VampWillow!

Honestly, if Jimmy was doing this in an interview, and I was on the board, I would move to have him officially admonished. This is just unpleasant. What exactly is the net benefit to Wikipedia of Jimmy's involvement at this point? He collects bad and awkward press like an apple collects fruit flies. We certainly know what the benefit to Jimmy is from his involvement with Wikipedia--free advertising platform for Wikia.

I'm getting tired of seeing stories about people building up their own personal credentials and standing on the backs of the Wikipedia project on the whole. Jimmy Wales, David Shankbone--take credit for things YOU actually did, go for it. David took some good photos, did a couple decent interviews. Good. Jimmy gave Larry Sanger a budget and let him go nuts, and nudged Wikipedia along. But this whole Jesus-like "I fathered this new thing, let me tell you about my side project..." stuff is just tasteless.

Yes, he's a businessman, and that's what they do, but how does it benefit the Wikimedia Foundation? If Michael Snow or Flo tried to pull this they'd be strung up and their soft bits cut off.

This post has been edited by Rootology: Fri 29th August 2008, 3:02pm

[Carruthers]

I'm getting tired of seeing stories about people building up their own personal credentials and standing on the backs of the Wikipedia project on the whole. Jimmy Wales, David Shankbone--take credit for things YOU actually did, go for it. David took some good photos, did a couple decent interviews. Good. Jimmy gave Larry Sanger a budget and let him go nuts, and nudged Wikipedia along. But this whole Jesus-like "I fathered this new thing, let me tell you about my side project..." stuff is just tasteless.

Seth's expression digital sharecropping seems to sum the whole thing up. It's all about using other people's work to make a buck. You have to admit that these people do a pretty good job of that...

[Rootology]

This brings up a good question--Seth, you reading this? Here's a column for you.

If Jimmy considers it wrong to turn a profit off of Wikipedia, why is it alright for him to do so via Wikia? Why is Jimmy different and special?

[anthony]

Honestly, if Jimmy was doing this in an interview, and I was on the board, I would move to have him officially admonished. This is just unpleasant. What exactly is the net benefit to Wikipedia of Jimmy's involvement at this point?

This comment especially underscores that point:

I think Wikipedia was just the leading edge of a much broader trend. At Wikia, we are seeing people build out all kinds of collaborative works... "the rest of the library."

He talks about Wikipedia in the past tense, and then he suggests that the expansion of Wikipedia is Wikia. Need he be reminded that the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to build the entire library, not just the encyclopedia?

I wonder at this point whether there's even a net benefit to Jimbo of his continued involvement in the WMF. He'd still get speaking engagements and interviews if he just cut the cord completely, maybe even moreso. And he'd be able to be a lot more consistent and believable when speaking about what he does. If he played it right he could probably even retain most of his de facto power in the English Wikipedia. But honesty seems to be the Achilles heel of Jimmy Wales. To cut the cord from the WMF he'd have to admit, to himself and to everyone else, that his creation of the Wikimedia Foundation was a failure.

I'm taking for granted here that the creation of the Wikimedia Foundation *was* a failure, and that, in his heart of hearts, Jimbo knows it. Wikipedia is as popular as it is *despite* the WMF, not because of it. Yes, there are pockets of success within the non-Wikipedia projects, but the mere coattail effect is enough to explain that.

This post has been edited by anthony: Fri 29th August 2008, 3:52pm

[Cedric]

If Jimmy considers it wrong to turn a profit off of Wikipedia, why is it alright for him to do so via Wikia? Why is Jimmy different and special?

Because he is a hypocrite. And not just any hypocrite, but a Sooper-Dooper King Kamehameha Hypocrite. Which makes you a fucking troll for even asking.

[Milton Roe]

Seth's expression digital sharecropping seems to sum the whole thing up. It's all about using other people's work to make a buck. You have to admit that these people do a pretty good job of that...

Digital sharecropping is too kind, as the sharecroppers got a share of the crop (hence the name). Knol is closer to that, though the line between being a sharecropper, vs. abused labor, vs. not making what you think you're worth, is a gray one. At least Knol-writers get some fraction of the revenue their labors generate.

The volunteers who built wikipedia, however, got zip. Even though WMF does generate revenue off content, in various indirect but very real ways, which have been discussed (Wikia content stealing, Jimbo speaking fees, WP-links to Wikia for nothing, blah, blah). The closest metaphors I can find for average WP editors are people who devoted their lives, or significant time, to some religion or cult for the good of the cult, then got excommunicated when they crossed the Head or the Elders. The only thing that redeems time spent on WP is that what is produced is not bound by WMF, but free to be copied by others. And has, and will be. Again, it's immortal.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Fri 29th August 2008, 10:39pm

[thekohser]

This brings up a good question--Seth, you reading this? Here's a column for you.

If Jimmy considers it wrong to turn a profit off of Wikipedia, why is it alright for him to do so via Wikia? Why is Jimmy different and special?

Sleepers awake!