Open Knowledge in the Age of Extractive Digital Ecosystem

Written by Camille Françoise (WMFR) and Michele Failla (WMEU).

The article was originally published in the European University Institute Policy Report on Open Internet co-edited by Patryk Pawlak and Nils Berglund.

The evolution of economic models in a digital ecosystem

Before the development of the Internet, business models for digital ecosystems were mostly closed. Organisations or companies would develop a product or service to sell at a lower price than their competitors. The first digital encyclopaedias, such as Encarta, are an example. The past decades have brought a drastic change in the business model promoted by the US digital companies, whose strategy shifted from the service-for-a-price model to offering a service “for free”. They enacted two aggressive strategies to capture the market: (1) forcing competitors out of the market and, once a monopoly was established, demanding payment while preventing competitors from accessing the market and therefore sustaining lock-in mechanisms; (2) using user data as payment to facilitate the resale of this data to external parties. 

Competition laws in Europe have struggled to keep pace with these practices and address the challenges they pose to legal frameworks, either through the exploitation of grey areas or through legislative gaps. The lack of effective tax mechanisms to address the competitive advantage of global tech companies operating in the European Union (EU) over EU-established companies further complicates matters. The European Commission has partially addressed these challenges with the adoption of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA), and has been actively working on regulating large platforms, with the objectives to limit monopolies and enforce existing laws and to strike a balance between content moderation and fairer revenue streams. 

However, in its ambition to establish a digital ecosystem that is fairer and more respectful of people’s ability to exercise their own self-determination online, the European legislators have focused on limiting the impacts of monopolistic enterprises, without proposing what a desirable future of digital platforms and commerce should look like to foster a thriving digital ecosystem in the EU. In other words, it did not address the compatibility of certain business models with European values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). Policymakers seem to be forgetting that there are infrastructures such as the Wikimedia projects, of which Wikipedia is the most famous, that have a unique model; a model that supports desirable digital infrastructures: open source, transparent, community-driven, and privacy-focused. This peculiar model represents the most unique democratic collaboration system within a digital ecosystem. The unique visibility offered by Wikipedia allows policymakers to often legally carve out spaces for this model to continue. But what about other Digital Commons, such as OpenStreetMap, for instance? Wikimedia is part of the Digital Commons ecosystem, which aims at creating this desirable digital future and deserves more carefully designed policies.

Open Data, Open Content: Fuelling Big Tech or Open Democratic Societies? 

Information enables empowerment. Wikimedia projects contribute to gathering knowledge to share it freely and openly. They enable citizens in their daily lives by providing access to neutral and verifiable information, supporting education, autonomy, empowerment, informed decision-making, democratic participation, accountability, innovation, economic development, social cohesion, and resilience for all people wherever they live. The model provides equal access to all, through the information provided within the open ecosystem: an academic in Argentina, a farmer in Belgium, a civil servant in Thailand, a CEO of a medium enterprise in Kenya, or a large tech company in the United States or in Europe.

The interstices of this model created a condition under which big tech companies can exploit existing laws to extract value from data and content. The protection of personal data under the GDPR is challenged by the black box syndrome: lack of transparency, lack of human rights enforcements and the extraction of value at unprecedented scale, against the intentions of the creators, occurs without sharing fair remuneration, increasing wealth inequities and social developments. These models challenge the concept of information being equally accessible and reusable by everyone, which aligns with the concept of equity. 

This raises a question whether, in democratic societies, restricting access to information because of the inequitable and extractive use by a few companies is a justified response. Such restrictions would have a major impact on people, including the progress towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, maintaining the status quo is not a viable option either. Finding solutions that will allow for fair and equitable remuneration mechanisms, ensure the visibility of sources, including human contributions, and facilitate transparent, accountable infrastructural designs for the digital commons ecosystem are urgently needed.

Economic Case for Protecting Common Goods in a Predatory Digital Ecosystem

One main aspect of the difficulties that digital commons face is not only the question of the materiality and digitality of the infrastructures, but also the financial extraction of the value contained in data, which is turned into financial flows to the benefit of a few concentrated global powers. This process diminishes the power of other infrastructures and communities while tilting the balance of power in favour of a few big tech companies.

In the era of the attention economy and data extraction in exchange for access to monopolistic digital infrastructures, the Wikimedia Movement and Projects remain one of the last bastions promoting the values of the open internet and net neutrality. Monopolistic digital infrastructures prioritise short-term commercial gains by enclosing public spaces and failing to respect and promote the fundamental rights of individuals and communities. 

Wikimedia Projects do not pursue profit and are oriented towards the public good: providing free knowledge and neutral, verifiable information to everyone. They do not sell information or collect or sell user data. They do not exploit attention-economy ecosystems, such as addictive designs, to keep people in the infrastructure. Algorithms are not used to give readers what reinforces their own beliefs and convictions based on profiling methods. Respect and promotion of people’s privacy serve to protect them and their ability to self-determination by fostering critical thinking. Equal access to information, the same facts, and multiple perspectives are the crucial enablers for forming opinions and meaningfully participating in democratic life. 

Supporting communities and infrastructure, whether physical or digital, requires financial streams. This raises the question of how to fairly redistribute the value back to the people who created it. The goal is to continue developing a more equitable, fair, and inclusive society, while protecting the commons and digital public goods. 

One solution adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation is the launch of a commercial service, Wikimedia Enterprise, to ensure that the value extracted by a few powerful big tech companies is at least partially returned to the people who created it: the Wikimedia Community. Such a solution, however, is not definitive given the unique features of Wikimedia projects and the undesirability of a one-size-fits-all approach. Other NGOs and Commons may have different business models, which may prevent them from effectively engaging in negotiations with big companies. Born a quarter of a century ago, Wikipedia serves as a reminder that the principles of net neutrality and an open internet are under attack by a few monopolistic enterprises, which replicate and reinforce inequalities at every level of society.