Regarding the first point, AI companies usually claim their work is scientific/educational. #3 can be responded to by claiming they actually use none of the original work, i.e. they don’t reproduce any of it; they liken training AI to learning from the materials, and usimg knowledge from some book isn’t just ‘fair use’, it’s the expected use of the book.

It’s mostly bullshit and sophistry, of course, but I’m afraid they will win in most of these cases since they have more money to dump into top-tier lawyers.

Web

deleted by creator

But deleting your own post or comments is not permanent, you still have the ‘undelete’ option, right?

Edit: As I just checked below, deleting your comment results in ‘deleted by creator’, not ‘permanently’.

A better argument than what - that they are openly violating the licenses under which the encyclopedia is distributed?

That’s a bit more convincing.

this is a highly unsettled question, and there are multiple cases in litigation today

I followed Kadrey v. Meta a little bit, and the conclusion was in favour of the training being fair use. What are the other ongoing cases?

Eh, as an editor I haven’t noticed I’m being attacked by AI companies. WMF would need some better argument if they’d want to sue successfully, especially aginst companies that are sitting on 100x more money than them.

BTW it’s already established that training AI models on copyrighted materials is legal without approval of the copyright holder, and IMO it’s unikely WP’s material would be an exception.

As opposed to not allowing them to do it and having every AI company scrape the site 24/7 anyway?

the employees are few

WMF has 650 employees.

What they’re going to demand is preventing arbitrary layoffs, less bullying in the workspace, etc. Supposedly the Foundation is very toxic workplace. It’s not (just) about the money.

Don’t abandon Wikipedia over this, if it’s useful it’s useful (though it shouldn’t be overrated). Do reconsider donating to Wikimedia Foundation, since the money apparently can be spent even on union-busting.

Relevant to mention: I’ve just posted a thread about users reporting that apparently WMF has hired a union-busting firm.

https://lemmy.world/post/50205578

It is publicly confirmed that WMF contracted the notorious union-busting law firm Littler Mendelson to fight Wiki Workers United.

(I also posted it to this community but it got deleted by the autobot.)

Edit: I just realised the OP link/article talks about this as well, ah 🤦‍♂️

Also may be worth mentioning the later part of the article, talking about Abstract Wikipedia, a beta project regarding whose future a request for comments has been called. Many editors believe it is unviable and a waste of money and time: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/The_future_of_Abstract_Wikipedia

“We have heard a range of views from staff, including concerns from those who have felt pressured to support union efforts and those who are confused by the unionization process,” the foundation added in a frequently asked questions section. “We have also seen a misunderstanding around what the union can do for global staff and Wikimedia movement communities.”

LMAO, fuck off with this bullshit. I noticed WMF spokepersons love this vocabulary, everyone except for them is “confused”, if you disagree with WMF’s actions it’s just a “misunderstanding”.