TECH · EXPLAINED
Whose Side Is Wikipedia On in the New York Times Fight With OpenAI?
The nonprofit behind Wikipedia filed a brief backing neither side in the New York Times case against OpenAI and Microsoft: training a chatbot is likely fair use, copying articles to answer users is not. The judge has not ruled.
.jpg){kind=link}
Transcript of the video edition
Whose side is Wikipedia on in the fight over chatbots and copyright? The nonprofit behind it just told a judge: neither.
The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft, saying using its stories, even for training, breaks copyright law. The companies say training on public material is fair use.
The Wikimedia Foundation wants it split in two. Training a chatbot on articles? Likely fair. A chatbot copying articles to answer you? That should follow the license.
Wikimedia’s lawyer warns a careless ruling could threaten free knowledge. OpenAI has called word for word copying a rare bug.
The judge has not ruled. So whose side is Wikipedia on? Neither, and now you know why.
Sources
- Wikimedia Foundation, Oct 30, 2026: The Wikimedia Foundation files to protect open knowledge in New York Times v OpenAI case (the brief, its two-part position, the positions of the Times and the companies, Stephen LaPorte statement)
- The Verge, Oct 30, 2026: Wikipedia’s operator says a bad AI copyright ruling could threaten the open web (neutral brief; OpenAI calls regurgitation a rare bug; lost visitors; LaPorte statement)
- The Next Web, Oct 30, 2026: Wikimedia asks court to rule AI training fair use, but not chatbot copying (brief supports neither party; 12 combined lawsuits; the judge has not ruled on fair use or on accepting the brief)
- OpenAI, Jan 8, 2024, as reported by Fortune: OpenAI’s response to the lawsuit calls regurgitation a rare bug it is working to drive to zero
This video edition was scripted with automated tools from the sources listed, narrated by a synthetic voice and published by Daniel Varrone. Corrections: editor@monochromechronicles.com