> The Financial Times, for example, blocks any bot that tries to scrape its paywalled content, including bots from OpenAI, Anthropic, Perplexity, and the Internet Archive

But then it was not really open content anyway.

> When asked about The Guardian’s decision, Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle said that “if publishers limit libraries, like the Internet Archive, then the public will have less access to the historical record.”

Well - we need something like wikipedia for news content. Perhaps not 100% wikipedia; instead, wikipedia to store the hard facts, with tons of verification; and a news editorial that focuses on free content but in a newspaper-style, e. g. with professional (or good) writers. I don't know how the model could work, but IF we could come up with this then newspapers who have gatewalls to information would become less relevant automatically. That way we win long-term, as the paid gatewalls aren't really part of the open web anyway.

▲

ninjagoo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Wikipedia relies on the institutional structure of journalism, with newsroom independence, journalistic standards, educational system and probably a ton of other dependencies.

Journalism as an institution is under attack because the traditional source of funding - reader subscriptions to papers - no longer works.

To replicate the Wikipedia model would need to replicate the structure of Journalism for it to be reliable. Where would the funding for that come from? It's a tough situation.

▲

riquito 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> we need something like wikipedia for news content

Interesting idea. It could be something that archives first and releases at a later date, when the news aren't as much new

▲

JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> it was not really open content anyway

Practically no quality journalism is.

> we need something like wikipedia for news

Wikipedia editors aren’t flying into war zones.

▲

fc417fc802 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Statistically, at least a few of them live in war zones. And I'm sure some of them would fly in to collect data if you paid them for it.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> at least a few of them live in war zones Which is a valuable perspective. But it's not a subsitute for a seasoned war journalist who can draw on global experience. (And relating that perspective to a particular home market.) > I'm sure some of them would fly in to collect data if you paid them for it Sure. That isn't "a news editorial that focuses on free content but in a newspaper-style, e. g. with professional (or good) writers." One part of the population imagines journalists as writers. They're fine on free, ad-supported content. The other part understands that investigation is not only resource intensive, but also requires rare talent and courage. That part generally pays for its news. Between the two, a Wikipedia-style journalistic resource is not entertaining enough for the former and not informative enough for the latter. (Importantly, compiling an encyclopedia is principally the work of research and writing. You can be a fine Wikipedia–or scientific journal or newspaper–editor without leaving your room.)

▲

ghaff 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, and it would be considered "original research" anyway which some admin would revert.

	▲	aspenmayer 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Original reporting is allowed and encouraged by the Wikimedia Foundation sister org Wikinews, which may be cited by Wikipedia. https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting

▲

fc417fc802 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> a news editorial that focuses on free content but in a newspaper-style

Isn't that what state funded news outlets are?