Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Mitar wrote: > Hi! > > Please see below the reply by Rob from MusicBrainz (forwarding because > he is not on the mailing list): > > [...] > There is no requirement for supporting us, but we're quick to > point out that a company that makes

[Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

I found http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/670044 Just FYI for all those who don't read all mailinglists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnHlksSfMEE ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Le lun. 18 janv. 2016 à 3:17, Andrea Zanni a écrit : On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:59 AM, David Goodman wrote: Nor am I concerned that our information might be used by people who oppose our principles. We ask just the same of our

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:59 AM, David Goodman wrote: > Nor am I concerned that our information might be used by people who oppose > our > principles. We ask just the same of our contributors--that the information > they contribute may be used for ''any'' purpose. > My

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Our users are the world in general; the decision not to make our license -NC is a basic part of our fundamental understanding. If were were asked by a commercial entity to provide a service beyond what we could afford, then I can see the need for some sort of arrangement, for it is better to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Hi! I think this conversation is diverging from the question of the *service* we should offer to others to licensing of the content. Licensing does not say anything about the service one should offer for the content. Any service, any API, is more or less something one does extra on top of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Hi! Please see below the reply by Rob from MusicBrainz (forwarding because he is not on the mailing list): > On Jan 17, 2016, at 04:51, Mitar wrote: > > I would suggest that anyone interested in monetizing APIs check how > MusicBrainz (https://musicbrainz.org/) is doing it. >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Isaac David wrote: > > Le lun. 18 janv. 2016 à 3:17, Andrea Zanni a > écrit : >> >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:59 AM, David Goodman wrote: >> >>> Nor am I concerned that our information

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Hi, On 01/16/2016 06:11 PM, Denny Vrandecic wrote: > To give a bit more thoughts: I am not terribly worried about current > crawlers. But currently, and more in the future, I expect us to provide > more complex and this expensive APIs: a SPARQL endpoint, parsing APIs, etc. > These will be simply

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

s. > > > Still, > > > > we > > > > >> can say this is tangentially supportive of our mission. > > > > >> > > > > >> As these two trends increase without our intervention, our traffic > > > > decline > > > > >&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

I've been thinking about it and this is just bothering me too much. On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Todd Allen wrote: > Folks (WMF board, and those closely related), do we really have to hold a > vote of no confidence to get your attention? Do you have any doubt that >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

> >> > > >> Those are the core questions we need to face. We will have to have > some > > >> uncomfortable, honest discussions as we test our hypothesis this year. > > The > > >> conversation next week is a good start to prioritize those. Please > jo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Il 17/01/2016 00:49, Risker ha scritto: Hmm. The majority of those crawlers are from search engines - the very search engines that keep us in the top 10 of their results (and often in the top 3), thus leading to the usage and donations that we need to survive. If they have to pay, then they

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

On 16 January 2016 at 18:21, Lila Tretikov wrote: > I don't think the minutes give enough detail. Well, quite. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Do you think? I'm genuinely not sure. I think that the difference in scale from what Google does with our data and the general developer/researcher is pretty big. One million times big. I actually think that "over-the-top" players like Google do actually exploit free licensed materials like

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

And limiting growth of the Foundation is not a bad thing... at least not to the community. > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > From: ricordisa...@openmailbox.org > Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0100 > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs > > "Imagin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

> Looking for additional revenue sources isn't a bad idea, but charging for > premium access is likely to annoy the community to a degree that will make > the great Visual Editor revolt look like some quiet and polite murmuring. That's definitely a conversation worth having, as it helps us

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

On 16 January 2016 at 22:09, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > Do we want to charge for knowledge? Of course not. But do we want to be > able to introduce cool new tools for everyone faster, because e.g. Google > is willing to pay for their development if they can use it for some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

llow content donations with a non-commercial >>> restriction. Right now, the concept of "free" include commercial use. An >>> added bonus to this is that we would get a lot more institutional >>> donations >>> of content if we allowed an non-commerci

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

clude commercial use. An >>> added bonus to this is that we would get a lot more institutional >>> donations >>> of content if we allowed an non-commercial option. >>> My problem with allowing for paying for "premium access" is that we are >>> allowing Go

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Hi! I have been recently investigating business models for community based and collaborative online services. You do not have to reinvent the wheel (or discussions), there is some experience in this field from other projects. So, to move the discussion away from just opinions and feelings... I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

ose future employers could easily be other tech giants. WereSpielChequers/Jonathan Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 18:11:51 -0800 > From: Denny Vrandecic <dvrande...@wikimedia.org> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freemiumly share in the sum of all knowledge." XD Il 16/01/2016 10:23, Pete Forsyth ha scritto: I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of thinking: Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

to go through Gift Aid. WereSpielChequers > > > > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 21:59:50 +1000 > From: Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l]

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Zanni Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 2:08 PM To: Craig Franklin; Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs Do you think? I'm genuinely not sure. I think that the difference in scale from what Google does with our data

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Pete Forsyth wrote: >Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the >Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to >the services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising, >providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Todd Allen Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 6:02 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs I wonder how many ways there are to say "No"? Well, l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

. at > least not to the community. > > > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > From: ricordisa...@openmailbox.org > > Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0100 > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs > > > > "Imagine a world in whic

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:09 PM MZMcBride wrote: > Pete Forsyth wrote: > >Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the > >Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to > >the services and APIs, expanding major donor and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Hoi, If anything the Wikimedia Foundation is about providing free access and provide it to everyone who needs it on an equal basis. When this changes, when people pay for superior service that is not available for everyone I will really hate it and the people who had us deviate so much from where

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

a-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Andrea Zanni > Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 2:08 PM > To: Craig Franklin; Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs > > Do you think? > > I'm genuinely not sure. > I think that the difference

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Thanks for raising this Pete. I am interested in both the ethics and practicalities of this change, as a long established unpaid volunteer API user. Sorry to raise the obvious, but while Geshuri is on the board, someone found in court to have acted *illegally* on behalf of Google resulting in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

I think if anyone were to pay, they should all pay at the same rate, according to their usage. Moreover, those whose usage is minimal should not pay at all. You might have a threshold – say, if it's $X or less, no need to pay a dime. So the Indian or African start-up would have access for free,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

gt; My problem with allowing for paying for "premium access" is that we are > > allowing Google to have a priviledged position. There is no way around > > that. > > What is the impetus behind this proposal? Its not like we are lacking > > money. And limiting growth

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

ubject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs I wonder how many ways there are to say "No"? Well, let's start with "no". (My actual thoughts on this idea would probably get me put on moderation, so I'll refrain.) I helped build this project to be freely available to all reuser

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

. To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org From: ricordisa...@openmailbox.org Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freemiumly share in the sum of all knowledge." XD Il 16/01/2016 10:23,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

2016-01-16 20:40 GMT+01:00 Pierre-Selim : > Isn't that the point of using free licence (not NC, nor ND) ? I guess we do > so > to allow people/company/the world to reuse our content the way they want. > > If we have problem attracting people to our plateform, then the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

> > > >> so. If we are to somehow incentivize users of SIri to come back to > > > >> Wikipedia, what would we need to do? Should we improve our site so > > more > > > >> people come to us directly as the first stop? How do we bring people > > > into >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Interesting. It would make sense in general, but if we de-contextualize Wikimedia. The potential of Wikimedia projects are connected with the question that they are free. Having a premium access means two kind of risks: a) losing the community, and Wikipedia will become quickly a "big