I am referring to the reply comment from surewhynotlem. They say that cost is 180 million while Wikipedia has 170 million on hand. That is a 10 million deficit.
While probably not enough to shut down the site it is still operating in the red.
Where I was going is explaining how it’s possibly not greed. Just the foundation looking for another revenue source that theoretically would not ruin the site.
That alt being a deal that gets Wikipedia more traffic
On the traffic front, other than donations, if they don’t show ads, isn’t more traffic just more cost? So, I guess if copilot instead just shows info without the user going to wiki that might be good in a sense? But if they drove more traffic there, not so much? Unless they are donating….
I mean, I guess it’s better than ahem…. Grok with its fictitious information, but, I don’t think this of the ai_lovers community either…
You for maybe have an argument that at least the ai will be fed dates with some basis in reality, which could be good.
I mean you’re right, it doesn’t, but it does feel a bit bad considering all that data is mostly the work of volunteers, who now get the intense privilege of becoming AI feed.
I hate this derivative AI slop fest we are driving towards, so I guess I’m a little sensitive to news like this.
I am referring to the reply comment from surewhynotlem. They say that cost is 180 million while Wikipedia has 170 million on hand. That is a 10 million deficit.
While probably not enough to shut down the site it is still operating in the red.
Where I was going is explaining how it’s possibly not greed. Just the foundation looking for another revenue source that theoretically would not ruin the site.
That alt being a deal that gets Wikipedia more traffic
On the traffic front, other than donations, if they don’t show ads, isn’t more traffic just more cost? So, I guess if copilot instead just shows info without the user going to wiki that might be good in a sense? But if they drove more traffic there, not so much? Unless they are donating….
I mean, I guess it’s better than ahem…. Grok with its fictitious information, but, I don’t think this of the ai_lovers community either…
You for maybe have an argument that at least the ai will be fed dates with some basis in reality, which could be good.
Many conflicting feelings
Not when the source is paying that part of the bill, AKA the AI company (or in this case Microsoft.)
“You can plug our site into your AI models. But you need to pay the estimated cost of the increased traffic plus some odd percentage.”
I am honestly only guessing myself since greed doesn’t make sense for a non-profit foundation that is funded entirely by good will donations
I mean you’re right, it doesn’t, but it does feel a bit bad considering all that data is mostly the work of volunteers, who now get the intense privilege of becoming AI feed.
I hate this derivative AI slop fest we are driving towards, so I guess I’m a little sensitive to news like this.
Oh indeed that there is certainly a big flaw and I hope the Wikipedia volunteers can counter that