If statements are hard to answer in real life. I don't think this issue is
as black-and-white as you paint it to be.
The question is about impact for your bucks. If it requires a relatively
small investment from WMF for Wikimedia content to be spread among more
people, to reach a wider audience, and if that cost somehow prohibits those
commercial players to do it in an open way or with other hurdles that
hinder further distribution - why not!
Why donors give money, is pure speculation. We only know one thing: we can
only spend it on our mission. So lets do that.
Lets not exclude whole ranges of issues based on some vague qualification
that may or may not have foundation in reality. If there is a specific
example that is terrible and you'd like to bring up, then do so.
Lodewijk
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brion, are you aware of any WMF tech work aimed specifically at helping
> large for-profits engage with our projects? Andreas mentioned a
> side-project for Amazon.
>
> Regardless of specific instances, in principle, would that be a reasonable
> place to invest general donation revenue, or should we get the for-profits
> to fund such work if it arises?
>
> On Monday, 29 February 2016, Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > Jimmy,
> > >
> > > I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and
> > > transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial
> re-users,
> > > and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the community.
> > > There should be a dedicated space where such information is collected
> and
> > > available to the public. Major developments should be announced on the
> > > Wikimedia blog.
> > >
> > > If some engineering team does work *specifically* for Amazon Kindle,
> > Amazon
> > > Echo, Google Play, Siri etc., then in my view the companies concerned
> > > should pay for that work, or the work should be left to a for-profit
> > > contractor. It should not be paid for by donors.
> >
> >
> > What non-hypothetical work are you referring to?
> >
> > {{cn}}
> >
> > -- brion
> >
> >
> > > Donors do not give money to the Foundation so it can flood the
> knowledge
> > > market with a free product that a handful of companies then earn
> billions
> > > from.
> > >
> > > As for API use, if there are *generic* APIs that multiple commercial
> > > re-users can benefit from, then they should be charged according to
> their
> > > usage, with small users operating below a certain threshold being
> exempt
> > > from payment.
> > >
> > > Lastly, we should not seek world domination. :) It's unhealthy,
> > especially
> > > in the world of information and knowledge. Prices should be high enough
> > > that some competition is possible.
> > >
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@ymail.com
> > <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help commercial
> > > > re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board
> discussions
> > > > about this topic. Despite that he takes every opportunity to attack
> > me,
> > > > and surely it will disappoint him to know, but my general view is
> 100%
> > > > in agreement with him on the core issue - where commercial re-users
> are
> > > > getting enormous value from our work, they should be paying for the
> > > > engineering resources required for their support.
> > > >
> > > > Here are two push-backs on the idea that I do think are deserving of
> > > > serious consideration:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Part of our core mission as a community is free access - will a
> "pay
> > > > for service" model for APIs for commercial re-users alienate a
> > > > significant portion of the community? Does requiring some to pay
> while
> > > > others get it free raise questions similar to those around "net
> > > > neutrality"?
> > > >
> > > > As a historical footnote, there was a deal many years ago with
> > > > Answers.com to give them access to an API which they used to present
> > our
> > > > content alongside many other resources. They paid for that - not a
> > huge
> > > > amount, but it was meaningful back in those days. I don't recall
> this
> > > > being particularly controversial.
> > > >
> > > > 2. In many cases it may be too simplistic to simply say "a company is
> > > > benefiting, so they should pay". The point is that *we* also
> benefit,
> > > > from increased readership for example, from our work making it to end
> > > > users as technology changes and as the way people get information
> > > > changes. There is certainly a situation where setting too high a
> price
> > > > would simply push commercial re-users to not use our content at all,
> so
> > > > sensible pricing would be key. And with real serious ongoing
> analysis,
> > > > the right price could still be "free" even if we in principle charge.
> > > >
> > > > ----
> > > >
> > > > For me, despite those being real concerns, I come down firmly on the
> > > > side of being careful about falling into a trap of doing lots of
> > > > expensive work for commercial re-users without having them pay. I
> > don't
> > > > actually think we do a lot of that right now. What I'd like to see
> is
> > > > more of it, and I'm pretty agnostic about whether that's in the form
> of
> > > > "self-financing cottage industries" or a "separate for-profit arm" or
> > > > within the current engineering organization. I can see arguments for
> > > > any of those.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2/28/16 8:02 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> > dar...@alk.edu.pl <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We COULD outsource most of our tech (I'm not supporting this, I'm
> > just
> > > > >> giving perspective).
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > One thing I've been wondering about of late is how much
> donor-funded
> > > the
> > > > > work the WMF is doing that is primarily designed to support
> > commercial
> > > > > re-users.
> > > > >
> > > > > The other day, I read an Engineering report on the Wikimedia blog
> > that
> > > > > spoke of the Wikipedia Zero team doing "side project" work for
> Amazon
> > > > > Kindle and Google Play.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was thinking, Why are donors paying for that? – especially at a
> > time
> > > > when
> > > > > the Foundation worries about being able to sustain fundraising
> > growth.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikimedia content is worth billions. Wikidata in particular has
> huge
> > > > > potential value for commercial re-users.[1] So have the link-ups
> > > between
> > > > > Wikipedia and Amazon, Google, Bing etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's clear that even in 2008, the Foundation was inundated with
> > > "multiple
> > > > > product-specific pitches" from Google.[2] I imagine the breadth and
> > > > number
> > > > > of these pitches from Silicon Valley companies can only have
> > increased
> > > > > since then.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, Wikimedia is committed to using its donated funds to make
> > content
> > > > > freely available under an open licence, but does that mean donors
> > > should
> > > > > also be paying for programming work that is primarily designed to
> > > support
> > > > > commercial re-users?
> > > > >
> > > > > That work could be done by self-financing cottage industries built
> up
> > > by
> > > > > Wikimedians, working for profit, or even a for-profit arm of the
> > > > > Foundation. All the Foundation would have to do would be to provide
> > > basic
> > > > > documentation; the rest could be left to the open market.
> > > > >
> > > > > The astonishing thing to me is that there seems to be very little
> or
> > no
> > > > > publicity and transparency from the WMF about developments in this
> > > area.
> > > > > For instance, I was unable to find any WMF communication about
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > Smart Lookup being integrated in the Amazon Kindle (something
> Amazon
> > > > > announced in 2014),[3] even though WMF teams clearly have done
> > > > programming
> > > > > work on this. You'd have thought having Wikipedia search embedded
> in
> > a
> > > > > major product like the Kindle is a big thing, worthy of a
> > > > community-facing
> > > > > announcement?
> > > > >
> > > > > In short, I think the WMF should collate and publicise more
> > information
> > > > > about commercial re-use applications, and be transparent about the
> > work
> > > > > it's doing to support such re-use. Maybe there is another
> > "transparency
> > > > > gap" here.[4]
> > > > >
> > > > > And if there is any work that the Foundation is currently doing
> that
> > > > > primarily benefits commercial re-users, then I think it should stop
> > > doing
> > > > > that for free (= at donors' expense), and allow for-profit
> > contractors
> > > to
> > > > > spring up and pitch for that work. That would allow the non-profit
> > > > > foundation to focus on user-facing improvements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Andreas
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/25/wikidata_turns_the_world_into_a_database/
> > > > > [2] See Sue Gardner's email quoted on the last two pages of
> > > > > http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/sandberg.pdf
> > > > > [3]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/forums/kindleqna/ref=cs_hc_k_m_oldest?ie=UTF8&forumID=Fx1FI6JDSFEQQ7V&cdThread=Tx27IU7Z5IQJV2J&cdSort=oldest
> > > > > [4]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap#Transparency_about_donor-funded_work_supporting_commercial_re-users
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Anthony Cole
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
