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?

[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?

I suppose it should have been "Could anyone get their hands on it and make a ton of money from it? " That was a bit ill-formed yes.

I learned touch typing a few years ago and I find the hands have a quite different concept of spelling and grammar than my head does.

Horsey, if he is reading this, will remember 'The Red Shoez' of cours.

A young woman sees a pair of red shoes in a shop window, which are offered to her by the demonic shoemaker. She puts them on and begins to dance with her boyfriend. They go to a carnival, where she seemingly forgets about the boyfriend as she dances with every man she comes across. Her boyfriend is carried away and nothing is left of him but his image on a piece of cellophane, which she tramples.

She attempts to return home to her mother, but the red shoes, controlled by the shoemaker, keep her dancing. She falls into a netherworld, where she dances with a piece of newspaper which turns briefly into her boyfriend. She is then beset by grotesque creatures, including the shoemaker, who converge upon her in a manner reminiscent of The Rite of Spring. They abruptly disappear, leaving her alone. No matter where she flees, the shoes refuse to stop dancing.

Near death from exhaustion, clothed in rags, she finds herself in front of a church where a funeral is in progress. The priest offers to help her. She motions to him to remove the shoes, and as he does so, she dies. He carries her into the church, and the shoemaker retrieves the shoes, to be offered to his next victim.

Dancing, typing. Anyway, a bit off-topic. No one has PM'd me yet.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 28th January 2011, 9:39pm

[gomi]

I suppose it should have been "Could anyone get their hands on it and make a ton of money from it?"

Let me ask a different question first: If someone was willing to [i]spend a substantial amount of money to destroy Wikipedia, how would they go about it?[/i]

The are corollaries to this is: Is there a way to destroy Wikipedia while making a lot of money? and Are there ways to make a lot of money from Wikipedia content which might or might not have the side-effect of destroying Wikipedia?

I frankly think that all of the answers turn out to be the same. If someone cared to invest in copying the Wikipedia article base, cleaning it up to make it safe for children and pets, correcting its many problems (mostly by deleting content), radically improving the GUI, changing the contributed-content and editorial models, and then marketed the hell out of it and found a couple ways to monetize it (other than dumb banner advertising), with a few years and many millions of dollars, you could eclipse Wikipedia and send it (more rapidly) into decline. I can imagine a business plan for this, but I doubt I would invest in it. It's too much work for too little upside, other than destroying Wikipedia. Hence the first question.

A more likely scenario (but harder to describe) is that Wikipedia is eclipsed by The Next Big Thing™ and suffocates under its own weight. But that will take longer and is less certain.

[Peter Damian]

I suppose it should have been "Could anyone get their hands on it and make a ton of money from it?"

Let me ask a different question first: If someone was willing to [i]spend a substantial amount of money to destroy Wikipedia, how would they go about it?[/i]

The are corollaries to this is: Is there a way to destroy Wikipedia while making a lot of money? and Are there ways to make a lot of money from Wikipedia content which might or might not have the side-effect of destroying Wikipedia?

I frankly think that all of the answers turn out to be the same. If someone cared to invest in copying the Wikipedia article base, cleaning it up to make it safe for children and pets, correcting its many problems (mostly by deleting content), radically improving the GUI, changing the contributed-content and editorial models, and then marketed the hell out of it and found a couple ways to monetize it (other than dumb banner advertising), with a few years and many millions of dollars, you could eclipse Wikipedia and send it (more rapidly) into decline. I can imagine a business plan for this, but I doubt I would invest in it. It's too much work for too little upside, other than destroying Wikipedia. Hence the first question.

A more likely scenario (but harder to describe) is that Wikipedia is eclipsed by The Next Big Thing™ and suffocates under its own weight. But that will take longer and is less certain.

Well one set of figures suggested the site was worth $50m a year. It's a different question and it's a different thread on how you would make that work without destroying it.

On who makes these decisions, how are the trustees elected? Suppose there were a model in which some of the existing adminstration survived and were paid a stipend to do what they currently do unpaid. Is it they who vote for the trustees? how?

Another separate question. What would adminstrators accept as payment for doing what they currently do on Wikipedia? $10,000? $20,000? I don't know.

[edit] OK I see how. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/en

Who voted in these? If you offered them $5,000 each, how would they vote?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 28th January 2011, 10:34pm

[gomi]

On who makes these decisions, how are the trustees elected? Suppose there were a model in which some of the existing adminstration survived and were paid a stipend to do what they currently do unpaid. Is it they who vote for the trustees?

Most non-profits have "self-selecting" Boards, i.e. they nominate their own members. Wikipedia is unusual in that it provides for one or more "Community" members. I have not read the WMF Bylaws, but I suspect that such community members are a (small) minority of the maximum board size, and thus ultimately powerless. If these are serious questions, go read the WMF Bylaws and/or Articles of Incorporation, and that will answer most of your questions.