The New York Times hands the first draft of history over to the BBC and Guardian.

Not that the paywall hasn’t been a while in the cooking. Noam Cohen from July 2009:

So, in essence, many Wikipedia articles are another way that the work of news publications is quickly condensed and reused without compensation.

I’m sure he’s most pleased that sort of thing will stop and the New York Times will be cited about as often as The Times is these days.

Every journalist I’ve spoken to since 2006 uses Wikipedia as their handy universal backgrounder. Funnily enough, there’s a distinct lack of donations to the Wikimedia Foundation from newspapers and media organisations. How much did the New York Times donate in the fundraiser?

We do this stuff for everyone to use and reuse. Journalists taking full advantage of this is absolutely fine. But claiming we should then pay the papers for the privilege is just a little odious.

I wish the New York Times the full fruits of this bold move.

3 thoughts on “The New York Times hands the first draft of history over to the BBC and Guardian.”

  1. It’s not like reporters never re-use the content of each other’s articles without compensation. They don’t get ragged about it unless they “forget” to attribute it. And Wikipedia is downright grindstone about attribution.

  2. Hmm, what do you base the assumption on that media do not donate? Did you consider the possibility that they might donate (but not as much as you would like perhaps) but do not want to disclose that fact? I know at least of two media organizations that donated money last fundraiser – and I have only seen a fraction of the donations made to the Wikimedia Movement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *