The Signpost

File:Antakya Archaeological Museum Evil Eye Mosaic in 2019 09.jpg
Artist unknown / photo dosseman
cc-by-sa-4.0
100
500
In the media

Extraordinary eruption of "EVIL" explained

Contribute   —  
Share this
By Bri, Smallbones
This last month has seen negative media stories about Wikipedia related to the US Congressional investigation of Wikipedia, Elon Musk, Israel-Palestine, but mostly to the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk and its aftermath.

Degrees of bad

From bad to worse

Worse than worse

Another point of view

One billion US dollars per year

Robin Berjon in Tech Policy Press tells us How Wikipedia Can Save the Internet With Advertising.

Berjon believes that the entire internet is in trouble, that the current commercialized model of the internet puts the power and money, as well as private personal data into the hands of a "broligarchy" and the advertisers they serve. Authoritarian governments have power as well. But none of these players have an incentive to represent the public interest and the information that the public consumes is distorted.

He starts with the premise that

"There is ample evidence around the world that media organizations, when they choose to, have been able to develop imperfect, occasionally failing, but nevertheless viable institutional arrangements that have shielded newsrooms from advertising money across more decades than we've had digital computers."

It's not just Wikipedia he wants to save, but local, national, and international newspapers, and digital media. The whole internet.

Berjon calculates that advertising on Wikipedia could bring in one billion US dollars per year in revenue. What could we do with a billion dollars each year? This reporter first would stash some in the Wikimedia Endowment and then get a larger and more powerful legal team to protect us from autocratic governments in almost any crisis. Then better software and faster servers. But other Wikipedians will have different priorities. The possibilities are nearly endless. Please share your priorities for a billion dollars per year in the comments section below.

But this is where many of us will get confused by Berjon's argument, or simply disagree with his priorities. Some Wikipedians won't trust the WMF with more money, some won't want the WMF to, even indirectly, subsidize other media outlets, or to get more involved with politics.

Berjon's vision does not offer a detailed roadmap to where he wants us to go. There are implicit subsidies to digital media and not-for-profit organizations, including a "Public Interest Internet Fund". Mostly though, he just wants us to show a significant part of the internet how to use advertising as a non-damaging source of funds:

"The Wikipedia community is in a position to create substantive power for the public interest internet at a time when it is being pushed to the edge of extinction. We will not survive without the funds to take a stand. We will not survive without a principled advertising infrastructure that can sustain usable, viable public interest digital services. Perhaps, if we can stop retreating to self-defeating principles with no grounding in empirical reality, we can try something different: We can choose to win."

S

In brief

Perhaps Wikipedia's evil twin has a goatee? But unlike Vulcans, it is not "incapable of lying".



Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit our next edition in the Newsroom or leave a tip on the suggestions page.


Signpost
In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0