Funding that goes to editors (for example, stipends to travel to Wikipedia conferences) has been decreasing steadily each year. It's not due to a lack of money - Wikimedia consistently brings in millions of surplus revenue each year, see WP:CANCER[1] - so it's not clear that an additional revenue source will change anything.

^1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...

If you want monetary compensation you should not be contributing to Wikipedia. Otherwise apply to work there as an employee.

The details are: none. There is no revenue sharing. That's literally the point of the Creative Commons license that Wikipedia uses. There's some things on the margins about attribution strings and share-alike requirements, but none of it would render AI training on Wikipedia illegal or compel AI companies to seek a separate, royalty-bearing license. Creative Commons is a "do what you wish" license, not a "free until I want money, then I rugpull you" license.

If you wanted revenue sharing, you were at the wrong party. You wanted the Microsoft-sponsored "Open Source is Communism" party down the block.

Probably the same ways as billion dollar businesses share revenue with open source developers...

are they obligated?..