I mean, they should be. Google uses Wikipedia content extensively on search results.
Google USED TO also have lots of prominent links that would drive traffic (and hence, donations) to Wikipedia. Over time, it has removed a lot of those links and replaced them with ones that lead to more Google hosted content.
There's a distinct drop in Google-referred traffic to Wikipedia over time that's in stark contrast to the increased number of eyeballs on Wikipedia sourced content on Google's pages.
It's not clear to me whether Google's sponsorship reflects the value they've gained. And, yes, I get that they are under no legal obligation to do anything at all, since the content license allows for all of it. But as with rich snippets, you can't just "take", or eventually, there won't be anything to "take".
Google USED TO also have lots of prominent links that would drive traffic (and hence, donations) to Wikipedia. Over time, it has removed a lot of those links and replaced them with ones that lead to more Google hosted content.
There's a distinct drop in Google-referred traffic to Wikipedia over time that's in stark contrast to the increased number of eyeballs on Wikipedia sourced content on Google's pages.
It's not clear to me whether Google's sponsorship reflects the value they've gained. And, yes, I get that they are under no legal obligation to do anything at all, since the content license allows for all of it. But as with rich snippets, you can't just "take", or eventually, there won't be anything to "take".