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.

[Peter Damian]

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.

And behold it is here

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_F...on_bylaws/en-us

And note here

The powers of the corporation shall be exercised, its properties controlled, and its affairs conducted by a Board of Trustees to be comprised initially of five trustees. All trustees must be active (contributing or volunteer) or life members of the Foundation.

but also

The property of this corporation is irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes and no part of the net income or assets of this corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any director, officer or members thereof or to the benefit of any private individual.

ARTICLE VIII: DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS
Upon the dissolution or winding-up of this corporation, its assets remaining after payment, or provision for payment, of all debts and liabilities of the corporation shall be distributed to a nonprofit fund, foundation, or corporation which is organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes and which has established its tax exempt status under Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or corresponding provisions of subsequent federal tax laws.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_F...ATION_OF_ASSETS

I would have to read more carefully to understand whether this still allowed Wikipedia (i.e. the name, the servers, the URL itself) to be sold. I suppose there is this:

These bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted by a majority of the entire Board of Trustees at any regular meeting or special meeting, provided that at least ten days written notice is given of intention to alter, amend or repeal or to adopt new Bylaws at such meeting.

As I'm reading Article VII, there is nothing to stop the Trustees authorising the sale, or the leasing, of Wikipedia to a non-profit, so long as the assets or the income from the sale were used for charitable purposes. It is no different from when my church, which had a building previously used for Scout meetings, sold the building for conversion into condos. The money from the sale was used to build a community centre.

If you look at what the WMF talks about and what it actually uses the money it raises for, very little of it is to do with Wikipedia. It's all about outreach and stuff, and building Wikimedia communities. These ambitions could be easily achieved if the Foundation sold its main asset - Wikipedia - to a third party, for a sum of money (or an income) which would enable them to achieve these laudable aims.

E.g. Bishakha Datta here http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees is "dedicated to disseminating women's perspectives through media, art and culture. " Fantastic. Here's a lot of money, Bishakha, for you to achieve these objectives. Samuel Klein is devoted to getting one Laptop per Child for everyone in the development. Here's a cheque for $100m Sam, take yourself off to PC World and get buying!

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 29th January 2011, 8:47am