Brion, Thanks. Our mails crossed, and this answers some of the questions I had. Please be assured that I wasn't expecting you to "defend" anything – I'm merely curious.
Regardless, I think the issues Lila summarised in her mail last month[1], when we were discussing charging for API usage, bear thinking about. Best, Andreas [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/081155.html Andreas On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Feb 28, 2016 12:29 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. > > As far as I know, Wikipedia lookups via Apple's Siri and Amazon Kindle's > lookup widget are handled 100% by Apple and Amazon respectively. They get > our data (presumably through our open data dumps), censor it, index it, and > write and maintain their own search and snippet display services. > > And here's an example perhaps of why: > > In 2008 or so WMF made an agreement with Apple to provide a search API for > the Mac OS X Dictionary app, which screen-scrapes Wikipedia articles as one > of the lookup options. They paid us a small sum and provided source for a > sample implementation, which I replaced with a one-file PHP script proxying > to our existing OpenSearch API. The entirety of effort on our end since has > been occasionally moving the PHP file to another server. > > We found it was a bad deal -- in terms of it was moderately annoying > sometimes for ops and was pretty unclear in success terms, and they paid us > very little to begin with because we had no experienced business > development folks yet. We never made further such agreements that I'm aware > of. > > I suppose Andreas might also be referring to work in mobile apps or mobile > web teams to improve compatibility with various systems, such as making > sure our Android app is installable on the Android-based Amazon Kindle Fire > devices. That's to benefit users by making sure they can use our free app > (open source and no-cost) on their devices regardless of which megacorp > made the device. > > If that's "work for a company" then I have bad news -- our web site works > in browsers made by for-profit companies too! ;) > > If there's anything else I'd really appreciate not having to guess at what > we're supposed to be defending or denying. > > > 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? > > I don't even know what is being referred to so I'm not sure how to talk > about it. If talking about compatibility work that helps users, then I > think that's part of our job to do. If talking about making search engines, > they can and do just do it themselves without our involvement. > > -- brion > > > > > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
