Quit the begging Wikipedia

Have you ever donated money to Wikipedia? I have, but never again. I have made the decision that Wikipedia no longer deserves my financial support. It was never a huge amount but, as a frequent user of the Wiki database, I felt I ought to make a contribution. I would even be happy to make a modest regular contribution... if I thought that the funding model stood up. I don't. No charity that I know of restricts its fundraising activities to just holding out a donations tin. Maybe they have a plan that I am not aware of but who cares? You have to do better than this if you want any more of my money.

Isn't there a danger that Wikipedia will just collapse through lack of funding, as its pitiful fundraising messages suggest it might? Again, who gives a shit? Apparently 98% of Wikipedia users don't, so why should I? Why should I subsidise the online activities of so many people with my hard-earned pennies? If Wikipedia does bite the dust, I am sure something will arise from its ashes. Perhaps some switched on people at Wikipedia itself will pick up the baton and find a better way to run the organisation.

I replied to this email in September

Needless to say replies to their trashy spam campaign are not monitored so I never received a reply. Unless of course the Deputy CEO of Wikipedia did indeed read my email and decided it was not worth her time to respond.

Wikipedia will not allow advertising but is not above using trashy email spam to beg money to pay its fancy senior executive officers

Most charities that I have come across, at least those that are established and successful fundraisers, have multiple sources of income. A local homeless shelter provider that my dear wife happens to be a trustee of, for instance. This charity has a range of fundraising activities in addition to encouraging regular donations. One of the best, in my view, is the annual winter sleep out. Supporters, including local dignitaries, are invited to join a mass sleep-out close to the town centre. Those who participate get the chance to experience, for one uncomfortable, cold (and this year wet), night, what it is like to sleep rough. It makes an important point, encourages empathy with rough sleepers, as well as attracting considerable financial sponsorship. It's the kind of thing that local politicians and some businesses are keen to support and the resulting publicity helps to bring in more donations.

This charity has also recently been successful in applying for funding from the UK National Lottery. Around a third of all ticket sales from the lottery are donated to charities and worthy causes, including local community charities. I am told the process of applying for lottery funding is straightforward and if you are part of a worthy cause, you stand every chance of success. The Shelter has used some of this lottery money to convert an under-used church building into five clean, comfortable, safe bedrooms for use during the winter months. All staffed and managed by unpaid volunteers. The charity has also set up a permanent advice service and day centre for anyone to use, and this has a small paid staff of support workers. The charity has other fundraising events and programs and donations are always welcome.

Some of the bigger charities such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution get a large part of their funding from legacies. Supporters will often leave some or even all of their money to charities in their will. Our neighbour who sadly passed away a few years ago, had no family and left most of her legacy to animal charities.

Wikimedia talks about the immense value of its database of human-created knowledge. This value cannot be overestimated. The sum total of human knowledge for the entire world, to the extent that it has been tabulated to date. Think about it. The whole of human knowledge in one place. Presumably in several different places, on the assumption that Wiki has some kind of distributed processing network.

Does the knowledge belong to Wikimedia however? Well, perhaps they may own the intellectual property rights (I don't know) to the information in their database but they do not own the knowledge it represents. How could any one person or entity own the sum total of human knowledge?

Wouldn't it be great if we could find a way of really making that knowledge accessible to every person on the planet? University and other courses could be designed around this knowledge, and made available to everyone, anywhere in the world. Imagine that. A university degree for anyone who wants one and is prepared to put in the hours! University degrees, not just for middle-class kids from affluent families around the globe, but for everyone.

If Wikimedia set about ambitious goals like this, perhaps they might find favour with non-governmental international organisations committed to education. Perhaps United Nations institutions, or other international organisations would support and fund this kind of enterprise.

Perhaps Wikipedia could work with a Large Language Model (LLM) provider to produce a tailor-made front end for its knowledge base. Why not? Oh, you don't want to get into bed with 'AI' providers? You don't want your precious database misused, the content stolen by AI?

Grow up Wikimedia! your database has already been raped by AI

The value of Wikimedia is that the content is created and curated by experts in each field. It has considerable control of the content and every effort is made to ensure accuracy, including providing references. This is why I cannot understand the concern about using an LLM to generate answers to questions posed in the course of online research.

A few years ago I set out to design and implement an academic research project on a subject I had chosen as the final part of my Open University master's degree in laws. At the outset, I was given some advice that was frankly plain stoopid, but typical of the cloistered world of academia. The advice was:

Don't use Google

Don't use Wikipedia

There isn't enough primary source material for the project you have in mind

The first two points, needless to say, I completely ignored. What the fuck world does the Open University, the world's biggest university, live in? One of the key points of learning for students on my course was critical thinking. Do OU professors think that, because an academic work appears in print, the information included is 100% reliable and with 0% bias? No, of course they don't, hence the emphasis on critical reading and thinking. Considering a concept, some research material, information or opinion, in some detail in order to establish objections and test their veracity. That is the whole point of following a higher degree program. It may sound simple but it took me years to be able to do this, to the point that I even flunked one of my early modules. That was the value of the degree. Among other things, it helped me develop a critical faculty.

Do OU professors think that, while postgraduate students are capable of critical thinking when reading a dusty old book in a dusty university library among dusty academics and crusty librarians, they cannot apply the same critical faculty to using online resources like Google and Wikipedia?

As to the third point of advice, also ignored, I managed to locate more than enough resources for my primary legal research, some online, some in libraries and books that I located, mostly using online resources. To the point that the examiners particularly praised my bibliography and references.

I suspect that, these days, the Open University no longer prohibits online research. Academics no longer demonize Google and Wikipedia as they have a much, much bigger new demon that they can now demonize.

Having written frequently about the value of using 'AI' for research I hope I need not say what I think of the act of demonizing a computer large language model. If I ever took another degree I would certainly be using such resources for my research, using them advisedly and critically as any good researcher should when considering a source. I would not, of course, use AI to write my dissertation. What would be the point?

So, to conclude my bit about AI, I would say that AI providers are among the obvious people Wikipedia should be talking to, in order to find a way to secure the future of the knowledge base. Why not? Would AI providers want to destroy the integrity of the knowledge base? Of course not. That would defeat the object. More importantly to Wikipedia, why would AI providers want to bother doing a deal when they can just leech all the information they need for their learning engines for free? I can think of some answers to this question but there is no point thinking about it if Wikiwocky continue to act the Victorian virgin, huffing over an improper suggestion from an admirer.

There are many other ways that Wikipedia could find a way to create a sustainable commercial funding model without the need to resort to the kind of click-shit advertising we all hate and ignore. And don't get me wrong, I am truly grateful that Wikipedia remains free and ad-free. A commercial relationship, a sponsorship, need not be intrusive and need not be advertising at all.

Here are some funding suggestions for the Wikipedia people to consider. A proper session discussing this issue would produce more and better options. It ain't gonna happen and don't expect any more money from me, guys, until you have come up with something better than your pitiful begging bowl. Stop worrying about your panties falling down in public and start looking to the future.

Look at working with an AI partner to produce front-end products to make the knowledge base more accessible

Consider partnerships with education providers to provide learning products using the knowledge base (1 and 2 could work together)

Think about ways of offering some kind of Wiki club, with premium (paid for) membership for additional benefits.

Joint branding opportunities, for instance with learning providers. I often do talks at Tate's London art museums. If Wiki offered a certified talker programme, I would happily pay to join if I thought it offered sufficient value.

Print (including Kindle) book publishing. Provide a method of publishing books that is better than KDP (not difficult) and that makes good use of the knowledge base. I would love to be able to publish a Wiki book on a range of subjects, adding the wiki brand, and making use of the Wikimedia network of experts to locate and attract readers.

Look at the BBC for funding models. The British Broadcasting Corporation is the UK public service broadcaster that accepts no advertising. This is in order to sustain its (somewhat recently tarnished) reputation for integrity and impartiality. Doesn't stop it from advertising its own commercial services which include paid subscription broadcasting and offshoot products like books and videos. The BBC of course sells its programming to other networks around the world.

I could think of many, many more ideas but what's the point, if Wikimedia insists on its po-faced, 'we are not commercial', approach?

GET A LIFE AUNTY WIKI

How would you suggest Wikimedia attract funding?

I would be delighted to read some of your ideas

Please share in comments and thanks for reading.