This is off-topic (I presume) but the idea of the WMF increasing its dependence on large corporate donors is beginning to trouble me. I want the WMF to answer to our readers and volunteers not Bezos, Brin and Zuckerberg.
I say I presume this is off-topic because I presume the WMF isn’t, even subconsciously, soft-peddling our share-alike right and right to effective attribution from these re-users in exchange for dollars from these re-users. On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 5:58 pm, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agree with Gerard. We WANT Youtube, Facebook, and others to use our > content. That is one reason why we have released it under an open license > and I believe one reason why we have been so successful. We of course also > want them to provide appropriate attribution. I think this would be better > achieved by reaching out and discussing it with these groups directly > rather than initially by legal means. In my experience most reputable > organizations are happy to attribute when asked. > > With respect to intermediation and them providing financial or direct > technical support Google, Apple, and Microsoft are listed here as major > beneficiaries as is the Brin Wojcicki Foundation > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors Would the WMF be happy > with greater support? Yes I imagine so. > > James > > Please note that this is written in a personal capacity and does not > represent an official position of anyone but myself. > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:41 AM, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hoi, > > Maybe you know, but Katherine Mayer gave a talk at the CC conference The > > subject was big companies using our content (it is not just writing) and > > making a profit giving nothing / not much in return. The issue she raised > > is that it may interfere with our collaboration model. People will > > associate our content with the company that profits in this way and not > > contribute their knowledge their expertise with us. > > > > So no word from the WMF, far from it. When you want the WMF to sue.. > There > > is wonder if the effect it will have is really what we want. For me it is > > first and foremost that people are properly informed and I prefer a > YouTube > > a Facebook to use our data over them not to do so over license issues. > > Remember the days when Wikipedia was young; it was a wide held belief. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On 16 April 2018 at 01:53, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Is someone from WMF monitoring wikimedia-l and notifying relevant > > employees > > > when an issue arises under their remit? This issue - big companies > using > > > our writing without attribution and like-licensing - has been hanging > > with > > > no word from the WMF for six months. > > > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I see this from Brian Heater at Tech Crunch on 25 March: > > > > > > > > "In a conversation earlier this week, Wikimedia’s Chief Revenue > Office, > > > > Lisa Gruwell told TechCrunch that this sort of usage doesn’t > constitute > > > any > > > > sort of formal relationship. Most companies more or less hook into an > > API > > > > to utilize that breadth of knowledge. It’s handy for sure, and *it’s > > all > > > > well within Wikimedia’s fair use rules*, but as with Maher’s letter, > > the > > > > CRO expressed some concerns about seemingly one-sided relationships > ... > > > *Smart > > > > assistants are certainly playing by the applicable rules when it > comes > > to > > > > leveraging that information base.*"[1] > > > > > > > > That article I link to has both Katherine (WMF ED) and Lisa (Chief > > > Revenue > > > > Officer) asking the companies who use our work for free to "give > > back." I > > > > want them to give back too, but I don't absolve them of their > > obligation > > > to > > > > meaningfully attribute my work and share it with the same rights > > > attached. > > > > If it is the opinion of the WMF that these smart assistants are not > > > > breaching my rights, I'd like to see the legal advice that opinion is > > > based > > > > on. > > > > > > > > 1.https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/24/are-corporations-that- > > > > use-wikipedia-giving-back/ > > > > > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:47 PM, WereSpielChequers < > > > > werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Yes of course the WMF can contact those who are detected reusing our > > > >> content without fully complying with licenses and encourage them to > > > >> comply. > > > >> > > > >> If a case were to go to court it would need to have one or more > > > >> contributors who were willing to cooperate with WMF legal in the > case. > > > But > > > >> I doubt there would be a shortage of contributors who were keen to > do > > > so. > > > >> > > > >> As for why the WMF should do so, here are three reasons: > > > >> > > > >> Each of our wikis is a crowd sourced project. Crowd sourcing > requires > > a > > > >> crowd, if a crowd settles down and stabilises it becomes a > community. > > > The > > > >> community is broadly stable, but we need a steady flow of new > > > wikimedians, > > > >> and our only really effective way of recruiting new Wikimedians is > for > > > >> them > > > >> to see the edit button on our sites. An increasing shift to our > > content > > > >> being used without attribution is an existential threat to the > project > > > and > > > >> hence to the WMF. > > > >> > > > >> Our communities are made up of volunteers with diverse motivations. > > For > > > >> some of us the BY-SA part of the licensing is important, personally > I > > > feel > > > >> good when i see one of my photos used by someone else but attributed > > to > > > >> me. > > > >> If the de facto policy of the WMF was to treat volunteer > contributions > > > as > > > >> effectively CC0 this would be demotivating for some members of our > > > >> community. I'm also active on another site where every member > > regularly > > > >> gets stats on their readership, something I very much doubt would > > happen > > > >> if > > > >> it wasn't an effective mechanism to encourage continued > participation. > > > >> > > > >> Every organisation needs money, the WMF gets most of its money by > > asking > > > >> for it on wikipedia and other sites. Again, encouraging attribution > > back > > > >> to > > > >> Wikipedia etc tackles the existential threat of other sites treating > > > >> wikipedia et al as CC0. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> WSC > > > >> > > > >> On 5 April 2018 at 08:04, <wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi, > > > >> > > > > >> > On 04/04/2018 08:36 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: > > > >> > > I'm curious also. I release my articles under "attribution, > share > > > >> alike" > > > >> > > and rely on WMF to preserve those rights. > > > >> > > > > >> > Why are you relying on the WMF? Wikipedia contributors (like > > yourself) > > > >> > are the ones who own copyright to the articles - the WMF doesn't. > > > Unless > > > >> > you've granted/transferred copyright to the WMF (or some other > > license > > > >> > enforcement agreement), I don't think they can pursue legal action > > for > > > >> > you or other Wikipedians. (IANAL, etc.) > > > >> > > > > >> > -- Legoktm > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > > > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > > > >> i/Wikimedia-l > > > >> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > 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> > > > > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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> -- Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
