21–30 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please take the next step https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_Copyright_Viola...
Nearly 2000 words on how I can police their website for them? No, thanks. If they took this problem seriously they would build a system to catch copy-paste before it went live on their site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wikipedia is about the only major non-ad supported website that normal people visit. Which costs $69 million per year to operate, has 300+ employees and requires six million donations. Your example also isn't free. > Most user content is probably on Facebook or Medium Medium is less than 1% the size of Wordpress, both in terms of traffic and amount of content. The majority of all content on Wordpress sites is ad fr…
I'm not sure what you're implying, but I would say that $69 million per year is incredibly small compared to the amazing benefit that Wikipedia provides the world. Also, this money comes out of the pockets of people like myself who are happy to sponsor it for everyone else. I personally love this patronage model and would be happy to sponsor an ad-free open-access newspaper in a similar way, if I found one that I had…
Fire is useful, so everyone who uses fire should pay a company some money? No, that's clearly mad. No matter how useful it is if it's poorly optimised or over costly then we should do better, not settle because it's already a great RoI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you're implying, but I would say that $69 million per year is incredibly small compared to the amazing benefit that Wikipedia provides the world. Also, this money comes out of the pockets of people like myself who are happy to sponsor it for everyone else. I personally love this patronage model and would be happy to sponsor an ad-free open-access newspaper in a similar way, if I found one that I had…
That's a silly way to value Wikipedia IMO. Fire is useful, so everyone who uses fire should pay a company some money? No, that's clearly mad. No matter how useful it is if it's poorly optimised or over costly then we should do better, not settle because it's already a great RoI.
Article 13 is the key one, mandating upload filtering. This has all sorts of side effects - suddenly you can't make a Dropbox style file sharing site without implementing pre-emptive filtering. You can't rely on notify-and-takedown. Article 11 potentially has huge implications for social media sites; suddenly a user posting a news article link with a quote becomes a copyright liability. All the worry that was focused…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please take the next step https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_Copyright_Viola...
Wikipedia should verify the copyright before allowing changes. It should not be the publishers responsibility to enforce the copyright. Wikipedia should be responsible because they decided they wanted to allow anyone to edit. They should hire moderators, and if they cannot moderate, they should not run a platform of theft.
But nooo, "I want everyone to hear me and I want them to know it was me who said it. Me me me. I'm important, I want to feel like it". Get the fuck over it.
And if you want to make money off of it, there are plenty of much better ways besides braindead ads. GDPR seems to pander a bit too much to carebears.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a vibrant free web. Wikipedia is about the only major non-ad supported website that normal people visit. Most user content is probably on Facebook or Medium. Most breaking news is first available on twitter. Even independent websites, most likely have Google analytics and Google ads. From a European point of view, the current copyright situation is just a wealth transfer from European compa…
If anything they will make more money, not less.
Not to mention the absurdity of the link tax, I'm thinking that could be the last nail on the coffin of traditional media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please take the next step https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_Copyright_Viola...
Nearly 2000 words on how I can police their website for them? No, thanks. If they took this problem seriously they would build a system to catch copy-paste before it went live on their site.
I would expect to read such an uninformed comment on Fox News comment section.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please take the next step https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_Copyright_Viola...
Wikipedia should verify the copyright before allowing changes. It should not be the publishers responsibility to enforce the copyright. Wikipedia should be responsible because they decided they wanted to allow anyone to edit. They should hire moderators, and if they cannot moderate, they should not run a platform of theft.
LOL
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia should verify the copyright before allowing changes. It should not be the publishers responsibility to enforce the copyright. Wikipedia should be responsible because they decided they wanted to allow anyone to edit. They should hire moderators, and if they cannot moderate, they should not run a platform of theft.
> It should not be the publishers responsibility to enforce the copyright. Why not? Copyright is an unnatural right created in the name of encouraging creative output; if the person who owns the rights to control copying a work don’t enforce it, why should the rest of us do it for them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wikipedia is about the only major non-ad supported website that normal people visit. Which costs $69 million per year to operate, has 300+ employees and requires six million donations. Your example also isn't free. > Most user content is probably on Facebook or Medium Medium is less than 1% the size of Wordpress, both in terms of traffic and amount of content. The majority of all content on Wordpress sites is ad fr…
There should be a better mechanism for funding sites like Wikipedia that provide what is effectively a global, common, public good. Perhaps a budget from the UN or something should be set aside for funding projects like Wikimedia, Archive.org, etc. It’s a bit ridiculous that something so important to so many people relies on donations from individuals.
Perhaps a large endowment, like private universities, could work? Enough money to let them invest in a diversified portfolio and run their sites off of the profits.