[alsetmusic]

> (Maybe Google could start by paying Wikipedia for some of the traffic they generate).

How is this different from arguing that sites, such as Google or Facebook, should have to pay to link to news articles? I appreciate and support Wikipedia, but I don’t think Google should be expected to help pay for it (though I’d appreciate if they did as a form of public service).

[choppaface]

The problem with Wikipedia is that Google copies so much content and moreover Wikipedia is a non-profit trying to cover their huge bandwidth budget. It seems a better alignment of incentives would be for Google to pay into the Wikimedia Endowment as a function of content served inside Google search results.

They gave a paltry $2m to the endowment a couple years ago. ...and how much did they make off serving Wikipedia content?

https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-milli...

Google has publicly recognized that they have a problem with trust and incentives. So when they admit that and continue to non-execute on addressing core problems, that's when the monopoly needs to be rebalanced.

[nybble41]

> The problem with Wikipedia is that Google copies so much content and moreover Wikipedia is a non-profit trying to cover their huge bandwidth budget.

Wikipedia doesn't run ads on their pages, so Google showing content from Wikipedia directly in the search results doesn't take away any revenue from Wikipedia. If anything it reduces their operating costs to have Google serve the content (with attribution!) rather than sending users directly to Wikipedia's servers.