So now, if a Google related Wikipedia article has something added to it that Google doesn’t like, they can suggest to Wikimedia they might not renew their contract unless things are “made right”
Google is just one example of this. Any company now has a pathway to do so.
I think this is terrible incentives, and destroys the goal of having an Encyclopedia free from interference where only truth can come through
Where? All i could find is they donated > $50,000 but i dont see how much more. I guess it depends how much more, but that doesn't particularly seem like a lot relative to WMF's annual budget.
The annual report does not have this info as far as i can tell.
That article is about the endowment not WMF itself. It might all be connected, but the endowment is removed enough that i think the argument that the donation gives google any control is silly.
It also says that there was a 1.1 million donation to WMF proper, based on a vote of google staff. Really not seeing the potential control there, given that it wasnt really directed by google executive. Regardless, i dont think a donation that is only ~1% of the annual budget is enough to give google any control
Alternatively, Google can modify their copy of whatever they take from Wikipedia and display to their users. The license permits this. They don't need Wikipedia to change anything.
Google is just one example of this. Any company now has a pathway to do so.
I think this is terrible incentives, and destroys the goal of having an Encyclopedia free from interference where only truth can come through