Power Chat – Maryana Iskander on trust, technology, and the future of Wikipedia
In this episode of Power Chat, Ferial Haffajee speaks with Maryana Iskander, CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, about Wikipedia's critical role in the digital information ecosystem. From the platform's symbiotic relationship with tech giants to the legal and community frameworks that protect it, Maryana offers a candid look into the future of free knowledge.
01:15 Maintaining Trust in Wikipedia
03:00 Era of Disinformation
06:47 Wikipedia's Role in the AI Age
08:31 Wikipedia's Symbiotic Relationship with Tech Giants
15:45 Wikipedia's Legal and Community Support
23:20 Efforts to Close the Gender Gap
26:22 Wikipedia's Global Volunteer Community
33:29 Conclusion and Final Thoughts
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
3 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Power Chat – Maryana Iskander on trust, technology, and the future of Wikipedia
In this episode of Power Chat, Ferial Haffajee speaks with Maryana Iskander, CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, about Wikipedia's critical role in the digital information ecosystem. From the platform's symbiotic relationship with tech giants to the legal and community frameworks that protect it, Maryana offers a candid look into the future of free knowledge. 01:15 Maintaining Trust in Wikipedia 03:00 Era of Disinformation 06:47 Wikipedia's Role in the AI Age 08:31 Wikipedia's Symbiotic Relationship with Tech Giants 15:45 Wikipedia's Legal and Community Support 23:20 Efforts to Close the Gender Gap 26:22 Wikipedia's Global Volunteer Community 33:29 Conclusion and Final Thoughts
Daily Maverick
29-04-2025
- Daily Maverick
We're not the ATM: Google says no to Competition Commission's R500m proposal to fund SA news
Marianne Erasmus, Google news partner lead for sub-Saharan Africa, spoke to Ferial Haffajee in the sixth part of our series on media sustainability and the Competition Commission report on Big Tech and its impact on the media in South Africa. Question: How do you get your news? Answer: I am reflective of the increasingly quick change in consumer behaviour. I am on simultaneous screens: WhatsApp, social networks and LinkedIn. I pop into a news article or a push notification, or I swipe left on my phone to go into a Discover feed [an interest-based feed on Android phones]. I've got a few news subscriptions that I read daily; they are local and global. It's the nature of my work. Q: Google says the Competition Commission's report does not account for how people get news. In your opinion and research, how do people get their news today? A: So, interestingly, the Competition Commission themselves did a consumer research study, and in their own study, it shows that only 17% of South Africans get their news via Google Search, and by far the majority, 77%, get the news via social media. The Competition Commission wants to ensure that public interest journalism is sustainable in the future. What they're trying to achieve, though, is getting consumers to go back to a newspaper's homepage, and they're not considering how news consumption behaviour has changed. It's a misnomer to think that the next generation of news consumers will always seek out a website's homepage first. My sense is reflected in my own behaviour and in the Competition Commission's study, which shows successful content creators and publishers find a way to package their content so that they go and see the reader, where that reader is. Q: An important question about the inquiry relates to democracy. The Competition Commission finds that media freedom is intrinsic to free expression, which is key to the Constitution. The Constitution is the key to democracy. It finds that digital platforms may harm democracy by harming sustainable media. It proposes a fund to begin to set this right. A: We also advocate for media freedom. Businesses do better in open societies, which is only possible in democracies. News media, as a public good, is essential for democracy and society and, therefore, needs to be supported. The contestation comes in the form of how and who is responsible for supporting the media. Q: Google has said that the Competition Commission report tries to resurrect outdated business models. We've spoken a bit about that already, but expand your thinking for me because it's quite a thing to say [about a regulator]. A: Google acknowledges the societal value of news, but we must be honest: news makes up a small part of our commercial business. Our 2023 and 2024 data points show that fewer than 1% of South African consumers come to Google Search with a news-seeking query. These news queries on Search also don't monetise well. Google Search revenue typically comes from queries with a prominent market intent, like someone searching for the best trail-running shoes. We're willing to play our part, and since we agree that news holds a societal value, there should be a whole-of-society solution. The onus cannot be on one platform to make an outsized and unwarranted financial contribution. We believe the Competition Commission missed the mark by not requiring publishers to recognise changing consumer behaviour and adapt their business models accordingly. Industry media fund Q: The Competition Commission recommended that Google pay R300-million to R500-million annually into an industry media fund for three to five years. What exactly did your written response to the interim report say about this? A: We're busy finalising our response and will make the non-confidential version available to the media. Again, I want to confirm that we want to continue collaborating with the Competition Commission and South African news publishers towards a balanced and durable outcome based on fact. Their value calculation is rudimentary and not based on accurate figures. The Competition Commission artificially inflates the percentage of search queries they believe to be news-seeking, and they make a flawed financial calculation based on that. Our data shows that only 1% of search queries are news-seeking, resulting in less than R19-million search ad revenue for Google in 2023. Remember that we don't show ads — or make money — on the vast majority of searches. And we don't run ads on Google News or the news results tab on Google Search. Considering the economic principles, there's already a robust value exchange. Google makes the search engine available for free. Surfaces like Google News and Discover send referral traffic to a publisher's webpage. Publishers can monetise users on their websites by serving them with display advertising. Using an independent third-party methodology from Deloitte, it is estimated that Google sent R350-million in referral traffic value to publishers in 2023. Q: So, Google feels targeted? A: We believe in equal treatment. The onus for the sustainability of public interest news is on all of us — platforms, governments, businesses and publishers. Google was the only platform asked to make a financial contribution. Globally, our learning has been that shared outcomes are far more durable. For example, in California, Google recently co-established a $30-million media fund with contributions from the government and other platforms. Q: If people are not searching for news, what are they searching for? A: A whole variety of things! Plumbers near me. How to get a red wine stain out of a carpet. Explain algebraic expressions to a 14-year-old. Interestingly, 15% of Google search queries are new every day. Q: I was interested in the Competition Commission's finding that search and social media companies had harmed community, vernacular and public broadcasters more than they had the English and Afrikaans mainstream media. What was your response to that? A: We disagree with the theory of harm. Simplistically, it is also a product of scale. The internet has democratised content discovery, helping people access more types of content than ever — whether a vernacular language news piece or a global news story. Q: What about the impact on the public broadcaster? A: The public broadcaster works with the YouTube teams and is part of our YouTube partner programme. They opt to prioritise putting their content on their own app, which will impact their revenue from YouTube. First gambit Q: The Competition Commission wants a win-win solution, and this interim report felt like a first gambit to me. Is a win-win solution still possible? A: Absolutely. Google has clarified that this is the ideal outcome we want to pursue. However, we want to examine more balanced ways to achieve the Competition Commission's goals. Instead of artificially changing our algorithm to favour local news sites, we would instead work with publishers from the ground up to support them with building better websites, increase their understanding of the data analytics available to them, and help them with tech and tools they have access to to support their digital journalism. This will all lead to more traffic to the local community and vernacular news sites, which, in turn, they can monetise. These publishers also have access to the recently announced R114-million digital news transformation fund, which they can apply to targeted projects to get the basics right. It will be a more resilient solution to address the problem with the technology and training we can make available to publishers for a better long-term outcome instead of a short-term cash injection. Q: They might say: 'We just want the cash, baby?' And that's not unjustified. A: A cash-hungry industry is saying, 'Yes, actually, we just want the money', which is the sticking point. Google would be interested in nurturing long-term, durable outcomes, but we would be hesitant to enter into short-term transactional relationships. Q: Aren't you trying to be too prescriptive? A: Our intention is certainly not to be prescriptive but to collaborate with the industry to understand their most significant pain points and how we, as a technology provider, can help. Q: So, Google estimates a R118-billion contribution to the economy in 2023. How? It's not showing up in tax receipts or GDP. A: That refers to the recently announced economic impact report. This number is the estimated economic activity from the range of Google products, including Search, Play, Android, YouTube, and Cloud, creating value for South African businesses, nonprofits, publishers, creators, and developers. Q: Google says it has supported news media through R350-million in referral clicks in 2023. In the bigger scheme of things, that's tiny. What's your view? A: The referral traffic figures reflect user engagement with news content through Google platforms. These figures align with broader trends in reports like the Reuters Institute Digital News Report, which show that news consumption represents a small portion of overall online activity. Q: I want to get to the Association of Independent Publishers agreement with Google [worth R114-million]. This looks like a workable model. So, how did you and [AIP director] Kate Skinner come up with it, or how did you get to that place? Because it seems like a win-win idea. A: When I started with Google in 2022, I first brought together all stakeholders, representing the big legacy publishers and the local and community publishers. We devised a set of measures captured in a letter of intent at the time that we collectively believed would make a meaningful contribution to the South African news ecosystem. This relied on components of product support, making available tech, tools, continuous training and a digital news fund. We established that a one-size-fits-all solution won't work, and we wanted to find a way that can support both the big and the small publishers in a manner that fits each purpose. The idea of the fund came out of that initial industry collaboration. Q: It's been six months. How are things going? A: The fund is now very much on track. We will soon launch the application phase and hold a series of inspiration sessions where we will showcase projects that publishers are winning with globally. This is only the second such fund that we have established globally. South Africa is the next shining star in terms of how a funding model linked to clear technological or commercial merit-based applications can be a win-win solution. Q: Google does not make public the revenues earned in a country. Why? A: We transparently shared the relevant data points with the competition commission. We publicly shared that we made R19-million from search advertising placed next to news queries on Search in 2023. Q: But you don't declare the entire revenue take? A: No, it's up to governments to decide the rules here. We are willing to play our part in supporting the South African news ecosystem, but this has to be a shared responsibility. We are looking forward to continuing to collaborate with the Competition Commission and the news industry towards a balanced outcome. DM Further reading:
Daily Maverick
23-04-2025
- Daily Maverick
Digital platforms have a profound and negative impact on media freedom and sustainability
South Africa's Competition Commission will soon begin finalising its inquiry into Big Tech and its impact on the media. Responses are dropping into its inbox. In part 5 of Daily Maverick's series, Ferial Haffajee asked the Competition Commission's inquiry chairperson James Hodge and panellist and media leader Paula Fray about the impact of the mass media's decline on democracy and whether they are trying to remake a world that doesn't exist. Question: What did the Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI) find about the impact of the platforms on media freedom in South Africa? Answer: The MDPMI found that digital platforms have had a profound and negative impact on media freedom and the financial sustainability of South Africa's news industry. Traditional advertising revenue has plummeted as digital platforms dominate the digital advertising space, diverting attention and revenue from news outlets. Platforms extract significant value from news content, creating a value imbalance of R300-million to R500-million [a year]. Platforms increasingly keep users within their ecosystems, drastically reducing click-throughs to news websites, undermining monetisation opportunities for media houses. The impact on journalism was laid bare at the public hearings held in March 2024, which heard of a halving of journalist numbers, increasing juniorisation and casualisation of newsroom staff, closure of regional bureaus and community newspapers, and a decline in coverage of rural and even secondary city areas. The cumulative effect is a systematic weakening of the media's financial base, which in turn threatens its ability to uphold its public mandate and thus ultimately poses a threat to media freedom, diversity and democratic accountability. Q: Your findings on the search engines (Google and, to a lesser extent, Bing) versus the social media companies are pretty different. Why is this? A: The remedies for both are the same in the long run: to increase referral traffic and offer the media a chance to monetise on their websites. It is only in the short term that it is proposed that Google compensates the media [at R300-million to R500-million a year for three years]. There are a few reasons for this. First, the two are very different markets. Search responds to user queries, whereas social media determines what goes into a user's feed. Search value is derived from being able to use media content to respond to news queries, whereas social media can decide whether to show media content at all. This is the unintended consequence we have seen elsewhere, namely the removal of news pages from Facebook. Second, it is only more recently that platforms like Meta have deprecated news content, and some, like TikTok and YouTube, have not done so at all. In contrast, search has drawn value from the media for a much longer period. Third, as social media platforms control the feed, they can address the referral traffic issue quickly, whereas it may take more time for search to address biases and user behaviour. Q: Why is media freedom important to democracy? This may seem obvious to some, but in a time where billionaire Elon Musk has made a catchphrase of the term 'you are the media', doesn't it suggest that with access to be your own media by all, this may no longer be that obvious a link? A: Media freedom is essential to democracy because it upholds the right to freedom of expression, a cornerstone of a democratic society. Media as a public good enables citizens to make informed decisions; by scrutinising government, corporations and other institutions, it holds power to account; and it amplifies diverse voices, fostering inclusivity and social cohesion. The MDPMI is unique because it recognises the media as essential to upholding the Constitutional Right to Freedom of Expression and other rights. Since digital platforms don't produce content, harm to the media threatens these rights. Section 39(2) of the Constitution requires the commission to interpret the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (as amended) in line with the Bill of Rights, making the protection of a strong, independent and diverse media vital to our democracy. The MDPMI thus explicitly connects media freedom to constitutional rights and sees the news media as key agents in fulfilling these rights. Their decline has constitutional implications. However, in the digital age, the link between professional journalism and democracy may appear less obvious. In a country with high levels of inequality, we know that not all voices are held equal. Access to platforms doesn't equate to reach, credibility or journalistic rigour. The information ecosystem is now filled with misinformation, disinformation and low-quality content. Professional journalism is governed by ethical codes, editorial standards and verification processes that all citizens deserve. Citizen-generated content is often not verified or held to similarly high standards. However, just because people can publish doesn't mean they will be seen. Platforms determine visibility, often amplifying sensationalism over substance. Journalism has social value that transcends commercial interests. A plurality of media voices creates a well-informed public and functioning democracy, and influencers or AI bots cannot replace this role. The internet has brought great opportunity for everyone to be heard, but the illusion of everyone being their own media can mask the decline of independent journalism, which remains irreplaceable in a democratic system. Q: How do you link the inquiry into platforms to the health of South African democracy? A: A weakened media landscape undermines the watchdog function essential to a healthy democracy. When the media cannot afford to cover rural areas or conduct investigations, the public loses access to vital information. The inquiry found that platform dominance has concentrated power, threatening the plurality and diversity of voices, particularly impacting vernacular, community and independent outlets that serve marginalised populations. We have seen that the platforms' gatekeeping role (via algorithms and monetisation strategies) can profoundly shape public discourse without public oversight or accountability. The MDPMI is therefore critical to the future of the South African democracy, and not just South African media. Without robust media, citizen agency, state accountability and democratic integrity are at risk. Q: The Competition Commission has made rigorous and remarkable recommendations in its interim report. Among these is that Google should capitalise a fund at the value of up to R500-million annually over three to five years while a relationship with the South African media is negotiated. That is audacious. Is it an opening gambit? A: The inquiry sought to determine the value of the news content relationship between Google and the media, and the distribution of that value. This was possible because the inquiry has evidence-gathering powers, which are absent in legislative processes that have resorted to bargaining models to find the balance in shared value. It was also necessary as Google and the mainstream print media had been in negotiations since the launch of the inquiry, but without success, given the very different estimations of value from both sides. This is partly a result of a lack of information available to the media. The estimation by the inquiry using evidence enables a reset in those negotiations around realistic values or the basis for an imposition by the Commission if no agreement is reached. Q: The interim report sets out a carrot and stick approach: if the platform companies (notably the search engines) do not agree to pay reparations, then the Commission will consider a 10% digital tax on their revenues. Have regulators or competition authorities in other countries done this? A: Given the difficulties faced with implementing the bargaining model in other countries, there has been a shift to considering digital taxes as an alternative. The reason is that it is unlikely to result in unintended consequences of reducing news content, as the platforms pay regardless of their algorithmic approach. As we understand in Australia, this has recently been considered as a fallback if no bargaining outcome is achieved. This is similar to the inquiry's approach, but our proposal differs fundamentally insofar as it looks to address the underlying cause of the imbalance, namely the choking of referral traffic, rather than simply looking to put in place indefinite transfers. Q: Your recommendations on the social media companies are different: you find, for example, that YouTube should increase its fee to content creators and that the others should not deprecate news posts. Could you explain this? A: There is a difference in how news media can monetise traffic on video-sharing platforms like YouTube instead of feed-based social media. On YouTube, the video is consumed on the platform rather than referring the traffic to the news site. This means that the only opportunity to monetise is through a share of revenue from in-video advertising. Hence, the focus has been on the fairness of the revenue-sharing model and the opportunities to sell their in-video ads at higher rate cards. In contrast, the feed-based social media has provided opportunities for text-based posts with links where consumers are redirected to the news website, which can then monetise the traffic through digital ad inventory sales. Hence, the focus has been on ensuring news is not deliberately deprecated, which chokes off the referral traffic. Where the feed-based social media includes video posts viewed on the platform, the inquiry has included a similar requirement to ensure a fair revenue-sharing arrangement. This applies to Meta. Q: How did you weigh up risk versus opportunity when making the findings? So-called Big Tech is ascendant in its power, given that US President Donald Trump has become its advocate. He has, for example, warned EU regulators against further efforts to mediate their market power. A: The mandate provided by the Competition Act requires that the Commission address market distortions to ensure a competitive and inclusive economy. The Competition Act applies to all behaviour that has an effect on the SA economy, which the conduct of global tech firms clearly does. This effect is even more so in this case, given the impact on the Constitutional rights of our citizens. The approach to remedies has also sought a win-win solution for both platforms and the media, that is sustainable for both, rather than simply taxing them. Given that the platforms face similar calls for compensation in other markets, we trust that the platforms see the opportunity in this approach to find resolutions and use SA as a testing ground for alternative remedies to address similar concerns in other jurisdictions. It is only if they choose not to that the recommendation for a potential digital levy or tariff is triggered. Q: What is the optimal outcome of the process? A: In an inquiry, the objective as set out in the Competition Act is to identify market factors that adversely affect competition and comprehensively remedy those in a practical and proportionate manner. The optimal outcome is therefore for the inquiry to make correct findings on what factors are adversely affecting competition and to put in place comprehensive remedies for those factors. The inquiry aims to achieve this by ensuring its findings are evidence-based and to retain an ongoing dialogue with stakeholders to ensure their concerns are fairly heard and assessed, whilst seeking to find some common ground on practical and proportionate remedial actions. Q: Some may say that the interim report seeks to return the horse to a stable that no longer exists. By this, I mean that the old media world of linear print products and a dated public broadcaster is in rapid decline everywhere. Does the Competition Commission's interim report grapple fully with how, where and why South Africans are taking their news as they do? A: The inquiry has included in its remit an understanding of the news consumption trends as well as their impacts and has undertaken a consumer survey to deepen that understanding. Far from trying to roll back time, the inquiry is deliberately forward-looking in seeking to understand the digital consumption landscape and the media's relationship with digital platforms, and to see how the market can be adjusted to ensure a fair balance between them. This contrasts with other countries, which focus on indefinite transfers rather than changes in market conduct. DM Further reading
