My genuine hope is that this can spark a broader change. Empower communities on other platforms, and see this become a grassroots movement of users deciding whether AI should be welcome in their communities, and to what extent. On their own terms.

A pushback against the #enshittification and forceful push of AI by so many companies in these last few years.

@quarknova I would say that the battle was lost when Wikipedia allowed big tech to buy access to copyleft content without needing to share alike.

Your new policy simply enforces "fresh meat" for the models, without any requirement for reciprocity back to the commons.

Wikipedians then, are signing up to work for free to feed the models, while people downstream from the models can use their labor entirely for free without giving back.

@bd808 I think the money that is paid to Wikipedia is an implicit opt-out of share-alike, since the content produced by LLMs are always public domain.

The LLM acts as a copyright removal machine, and big tech is paying Wikipedia to look the other way.

@bd808 The payment makes a difference.

https://www.avclub.com/wikipedia-ai-partnerships-meta-amazon-microsoft

Wikipedia could have chosen to defend its contributors. Instead, they are taking payment to allow for piracy of contributor works. Given that we know that the big tech LLMs don't respect copyright and derivative works are produced as public domain, the license is clearly being violated, and Wikipedia is being paid for the privilege.

We give it away - but alike, not to be closed. Public domain works can be closed.

@bd808 It forecloses the possibility that Wikipedia will defend its contributors.

The license is being wantonly violated, and Wikipedia has co-signed the theft. That is what changes when the funds are exchanged.

Yes, the license has not changed - yet, it clearly has, since Wikipedia is selling an opt-out to NOT defend contributors - even as big tech produces derivative works not protected by the license that contributions were granted under.

What enclosure are you talking about?

@bd808 I frankly think that they already have - to be paid for access to (newly guaranteed to be human) contributions to feed the models, rather than asking the big tech bots to stop scraping while violating the license is a de facto opt out of the license terms, even as de jure the terms exist.

I am not a lawyer, so it would be handy to consult with one to get their opinion on whether contributors who contribute with the knowledge of these deals are also dual licensing their contributions.