If a tech task is relatively cheap and will expand the spread of free
knowledge then no one would object to you spending a little bit of donor
mony, I'm sure. But don't you see a point where it becomes sensible to
expect the for-profit/s who are expanding their profits thanks to such work
to pay for such work? Especially when we have a limited budget, and
volunteers' requests for you to help them make and present knowledge are
routinely turned down?
On Monday, 29 February 2016, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>
> > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > > <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:;>
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> <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:;>
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> <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:;>
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> <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>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anthony Cole
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
