dai

Buongiorno Alberto,

follow the money? :-)

Alberto Cammozzo via nexa <nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> writes:

[...]

Attardi fa l'esempio di Wikipedia che è l'unica piattaforma 
centralizzata di scala globale confrontabile con GAFAM e che non usa il 
surveillance capitalism come modello di business.

Io preferisco la parola capture a surveillance perché rende meglio il
concetto (capture implica surveillance), ma è una /pignoleria/ :-)

Sono imbarazzato, non capisco perché sostieni che Wikipedia, o meglio
Wikimedia, non usa quel modello di "business", considerato - per dire
l'ultima - che ha appena lanciato il suo "Enterprise" service con
relativa azienda con sede nel... Delaware, ma ROTFL!

Wikipedia’s Deep Ties to Big Tech
By Michael Olenick APR 5, 2021 

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/wikipedias-deep-ties-to-big-tech

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---

Wikipedia’s online fundraising efforts that highlight its dependence on
donations for its continued functioning,[*] its assurance that it is
“super transparent with the public,” and occasional threats to run ads
to assure Wikipedia’s financial stability. Most users probably also
assume that Wikipedia’s content, even if sometimes mistaken or
incomplete, is basically harmless, with occasional errors the price of
straitened production conditions and limited staff. [...]

Wikipedia Is Wealthy & Works with Big Tech 

Despite frequent protestations to the contrary, Wikimedia – the San
Francisco-based parent non-profit of Wikipedia – has enormous financial
reserves.

[...] implementing a new service, Wikimedia Enterprise, a for-profit
Delaware-based company to charge Big Tech for easier electronic access
to Wikipedia content.

Lest there be any ambiguity about who “these companies” are, they
explain high-volume commercial reusers include “the ‘infoboxes’ ..
shown in search engine results,” “voice-operated virtual assistants such
as Siri and Alexa,” and “augmented information .. such as in-flight
entertainment systems or smartphones.” For those who still don’t get it,
the term infoboxes links to a Wikipedia article about Google’s knowledge
panel.[1]

Wikimedia argues for-profit high-volume information “reusers” (its term)
have repeatedly asked for a dedicated service to efficiently funnel
information away from the site and money towards it. Big Tech wants a
contractual arrangement along with a service level agreement
(SLA). Wikimedia argues it is unable to offer a contract or provide an
SLA under its current legal scheme.

When asked, Wikimedia representatives responded that the Big Tech
businesses are uncomfortable supporting the non-profit through donations
and that they’d prefer a more explicit fee-for-service arrangement.[2]
Furthermore, the ongoing practice of embedding Wikimedia content into
the websites and information outlets of others deprives Wikimedia of an
ability to advertise for donations which, over the long-run, may impact
its ability to fundraise.

[...] Wikimedia Lacks Transparency

[...] Google’s former charity, Google.org, shuttered the year ending
2018.[9] Google made two large donations to Tides Foundation, a total of
$50,264,173 listed in their 2018 disclosure (consisting of three
donations: $43,844,348, $844,448, and $560,055) and $76,385,901 in
2017. Neither matches a line-item amount Tides Foundation reported for
the corresponding years.[10] Google also contributes money directly to
both Wikimedia and the Wikimedia Endowment, announcing a $7.5 million
donation at the 2019 Word Economic Forum.[11]

[...] While Wikimedia donates money to Tides – to support its endowment
and Knowledge Equity Fund (via Tides Advocacy) – Tides also donates
money to Wikimedia. However, the Tides donations do not appear in
Wikimedia annual reports [...]

--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
(e /molto/ altro ancora nell'articolo)

Il suo primo cliente /pare/ essere Google:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---

It’s not exactly clear how Google’s new partnership will change the
end-user side of things. Tim Palmer, the managing director of Google’s
search partnerships, vaguely commented that Google looks forward to
“deepening” its partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation through its
Enterprise service. Lane Becker, Wikimedia Enterprise’s senior director
of earned revenue told The Verge that the service is still in its “early
days” and declined to comment on specific ways Google might use it.

I would imagine that Google users probably won’t notice a change at all
— maybe we’ll see Wikipedia cited more often in knowledge panels or
perhaps Google will come up with a new way to integrate Wikipedia’s
information into its services. Google has made donations to the
Wikimedia Foundation in the past, but this marks the first time it’s
signing on as an actual customer.

[...] Wikimedia argues it currently subsidizes Big Tech by providing the
labor required for the coordination of information dissemination. The
implication is that there are resources at Wikimedia with an incremental
cost to feed data to Big Tech. A question asking for a guesstimate about
how many people spend how much time on this activity went unanswered,
along with all other written questions.

--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
(https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/22/23178245/google-paying-wikimedia-foundation-information)

Mi pare suggerisca che abbiamo bisogno di alternative al modello di 
business, e in questo la proposta di offrire gli stessi servizi con un 
modello stile WP senza sorveglianza mi pare valida.

WP come Wikipedia?  Non credo proprio.

WP come WordPress? :-D

Scherzi a parte, ho la /vaga/ sensazione che potremmo star qui in eterno
a giocare di inventarci nuovi modelli di business senza mai risolvere il
problema (quale problema?)

In altri termini: cambiare modello di business in un mercato NON libero
come quello attialmente dominante (capitalismo) credo sia inutile.

Trovare modelli di business alternativi in un libero mercato credo sia
più efficace... libero per davvero però, non per finta come vogliono
farci credere i narratori delle magnifiche e progressive sorti del
capitalismo (in ogni sua declinazione: classico, finanziario, turbo, a
energia eolica, corretto grappa...).

Già, questo però non c'entra proprio nulla con la lista Nexa:
perdonatemi!

[...]

Saluti, 380°