That, and it's all the most ironic to read it in a mainstream
newspaper: the mainstream press *does* aim at amassing wealth, and
bringing news to their readership is a mean rather than an end.

The US media gave a stricking example during the build-up towards the
invasion of Iraq, by completely departing the realm of reality without
being actually threatened or censored. Less egregious but more
consistant examples show up everytime a mainstream medium interviews a
mediatic but incompetent figure rather than an actual expert, simply
because journalists know the fake "experts"; or when journalists make
claims to a special status akin to that of policemen or first
rescuers, while they are merely employees of for-profit companies who
bring no benefits in disaster areas. Those who can read French might
be interested in this rare example of introspection:

In short, the media are overly and occasially unjustly prompt to
accuse others of a shortcoming of which they are the first and
foremost culprits.
  -- Rama

On 17/08/2010, Patrick Borer <> wrote:
> Daniel Boos wrote:
>> Dear Edi
>> Did you read the whole article? I did not talk about Facebook. As far
>> as I understood your example Facebook is using Wikipedia Content on
>> their platform to make it more attractive and get more money. I did
>> not know that, but  this doesn't change that the statement is wrong.
>> Wikimedia is a non-profit foundation (1) and not a for profit
>> organization. Wikimedia is about making knowledge available. The quote
>> however says that Wikimedia is a for profit organization and the same
>> as google or facebook.
> Well, in fact the quote doesn't mention Wikimedia, only Wikipedia ;-) -
> but I wouldn't wonder if the article's author doesn't know the
> difference. It's completely inconceivable how "Wikipedia" could be
> interested in "Marktanteile, Umsatz und Ertrag" (it's of course
> impossible to attribute motives of any kind to "Wikipedia", which is the
> sum of its authors and not a legal entity - it would have to be
> Wikimedia), and as Wikimedia relies on donations, the content of all
> Wikimedia projects is freely available, and there are no paid
> advertisements whatsoever, the quote is rightly described as nonsense.
> That commercial enterprises are allowed to use Wikipedia content is an
> essential part of the Free license, as Rama Neko wrote, but doesn't make
> Wikipedia/Wikimedia itself commercial.
> Best regards
> Patrick Borer
>> Best
>> Daniel
>> (1)
>> 2010/8/17<>:
>>> Dear Daniel
>>> Nonsense? Wikipedia articles can now be included in Facebook and
>>> Facebook is more about money than social media.
>>> Edi
>>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:20:42 +0200, Daniel Boos<>  wrote:
>>>> Dear all
>>>> the NZZ has today an article from a publisher about
>>>> "Leistungsschutzrechte" for publisher. Among other inacurrencies and
>>>> exaggerations (e.g. law free internet), he also writes the following
>>>> sentence:
>>>> "Die Internetgemeinde aber wird mit der Realität konfrontiert: Nachdem
>>>> klar geworden ist, dass es weder Google noch Wikipedia um die
>>>> Vermehrung des Wissens, sondern um Marktanteile, Umsatz und Ertrag
>>>> geht und auch auf den Social-Media-Plattformen wie Twitter oder
>>>> Facebook (über Werbung) Milliarden eingenommen werden, verteidigen nun
>>>> auch Verleger ihre und damit die Interessen ihrer Mitarbeiterinnen und
>>>> Mitarbeiter."
>>>> I think it would be great if Wikimedia CH reacts on such a statement.
>>>> Best
>>>> Daniel
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia CH website
>>>> Wikimediach-l mailing list
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia CH website
>>> Wikimediach-l mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia CH website
>> Wikimediach-l mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia CH website
> Wikimediach-l mailing list

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia CH website
Wikimediach-l mailing list

Antwort per Email an