A topic which I feel that I should address again on this mailing list is
revenue for Wikimedia work, specifically WMF and non-WMF sources of revenue.
I will start by talking about my personal situation, and then discuss some
I am currently requesting a grant from WMF. I cannot afford afford to work
on this project in a sustainable way without funding, and I feel that I am
making a request that is reasonably aligned with market rates for someone
with my current level of skills and knowledge, but I feel conflicted about
requesting funding from WMF because of the potential for difficulties
between WMF and the community, especially because of the potential that I
would be reluctant to express my views regarding WMF due to fear of losing
WMF funding. (I'm not linking to my grant request here because I don't want
this email to give the impression that I'm using this topic to ask for
community endorsements for my grant request.)
Similarly, *The Signpost *is labor-intensive to produce, and I would like
for funding to be available for the more prolific *Signpost *contributors
so that they have a good reason to treat their labor for The Signpost as
part time jobs. However, it would be difficult to maintain the editorial
independence of *The Signpost *from WMF if the contributors (especially
contributors to the "News and Notes" and "In the Media" sections, and the
contributors who are responsible for the overall editing and
publication of *The
Signpost*) received funding from WMF.
There are many other areas in the Wikimedia community where there is enough
work that is not getting done by volunteers, and/or where volunteers can
put in so many hours that they can get burnt out, that I think that non-WMF
funding would be good to make available for contributors who would like to
work in these areas. Two examples are investigations of undisclosed paid
editing, and translation and development of medical content.
With Kaarl's cooperation (thank you, Kaarl) I have requested that two of
the WMF strategy working groups consider non-WMF funding for Wikimedia work
as a part of their discussions.
I would like for significant non-WMF revenue to be available for Wikimedia
work. I think that this could be arranged with WMF's cooperation, although
there is a long journey between saying that "I think that this could be
arranged" and having a successful system in place.
If you have thoughts that you would like to share on this topic, then I
hope that you will comment here on this mailing list, or in some other
appropriate location such as one or both of the relevant strategy talk
Let me make a specific invitation to WMF employees to share your thoughts.
I would like to hear your comments, both official and personal, if that is
okay and if you would like to comment.
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
Wikimedia Sverige is proud to be the recipient of $324,500 in support from
the Swedish Postcode Foundation for our project FindingGLAMs
We will work in collaboration with UNESCO and the Wikimedia Foundation to
achieve a number of ambitious goals over the 15 month long project. We will
- Collect and include data about GLAM institutions around the world
on Wikidata (e.g. where they are located). This will be done both through a
campaign and from batch uploads of datasets;
- Batch upload collections of media files, in collaboration with the
Structured Data on Commons program;
- Organize networks of experts to discuss issues with disseminating
different types of material through the Wikimedia projects;
- Create a white paper consisting of a number of case studies based on
the work and discussions outlined above;
- Communicate about the Wikimedia movement’s work with GLAMs at
- Organize a number of activities both on- and offline to use the
material. This include some work around Wikimania 2019 that will take place
in Stockholm, Sweden.
We hope many of you would like to get involved in the project and work with
us to connect to GLAM partners in your countries. At this point we are
looking for your help to identify institutions that maintain lists of GLAM
institutions (similar to the collection of monuments lists for WLM) and
later to identify GLAM institutions with specific types of collections that
would like to work with the Wikimedia movement.
Please contact the project manager John Andersson (
john.andersson(a)wikimedia.se) if you have any questions. If you are
interested to take part, please sign up on the project portal at Meta:
As always, you can find the full application on our wiki (in Swedish):
 GLAM is an acronym for Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums.
We look forward working with you!
- - - -
Email: john.andersson(a)wikimedia.se <JohnAndersson86(a)hotmail.com>
Visiting address: Goto10, Hammarby Kaj 10D, 120 32 Stockholm
TL;DR. We are writing to you today to share some updates about Wikimedia’s
involvement in the European Union’s current Copyright Reform. After the
European Parliament voted to reject a specific proposal in July, the
Parliament will vote on a final version of the proposal on September 12.
Many Wikimedia chapters, user groups, and community organized around the
last vote so we have provided resources this time around to help with
messaging, including a website (fixcopyright.wikimedia.org) where people in
Europe can contact their representatives in the European Parliament.
Some background. In 2016, the European Commission released a proposal to
update and harmonize copyright across the European Union (EU). Instead of
modernizing copyright law, the proposal added greater inhibitions to
participation online and failed to include a few key exceptions that would
legalize the many valid uses of copyright- protected content that European
citizens engage in every day. Since the initial proposal, the Commission
proposal has gone through a few revisions, the most recent of which was by
a subcommittee of Parliament called the JURI Committee. This version
included a provision, Article 13, which would have mandated that nearly all
platforms which host user-generated content pre-filter any uploads,
creating a system which would result in overbroad copyright takedowns and
create a potential mechanism for future government censorship of content.
Because of the important consequences this would have on free expression on
the internet, many voices from both the digital rights and human
rights communities spoke out against this proposal.
As a result of this pressure, the European Parliament voted to reject this
version of the text on July 5, and to leave the original Commission
proposal open for amendments to be proposed and voted on in early
September. This leads us to where we are now -- new amendments were
proposed on September 5 (we are still gathering and analyzing these
currently) and a vote on which amendment to adopt will take place on
Wikimedia’s position. Wikimedia’s stance on the direction of copyright
reform is simple: reform must acknowledge and embrace the many ways that EU
citizens use the internet already, instead of trying to entrench outdated
copyright norms. What this means practically is that no regulations should
be passed that would force platforms to pre-filter user uploads. We also
support the inclusion of safeguards and exceptions for public domain works,
freedom of panorama, user-generated content, and text and data mining which
protect ordinary uses of the internet like sharing photographs of public
spaces, conducting research, and creating and sharing educational content.
Even when these provisions may not impact Wikipedia directly, Wikipedia
exists as a part of a greater internet ecosystem which would benefit
greatly from a positive direction for EU copyright.
Wikimedia’s involvement. In the weeks leading up to the vote on July 5, the
Wikimedia Foundation and European chapters published several
statements warning of the dangers that pre-filtering content posed to the
collection and sharing of knowledge on the internet. These efforts
culminated in the independent decision of several European-language
Wikipedias to black out their sites for a day to show their commitment to
an internet where everyone can find and share knowledge.
After the European Parliament rejected the JURI version of the text, we
regrouped, reaching out to community leaders to discuss what worked, what
didn’t, and what resources would be needed for communities that want to
speak out about European copyright. Based on these consultations, we have
created a landing page, available at fixcopyright.wikimedia.org which includes
a short introduction and call to action as well as a feature to allow users
to search for and contact their MEPs via email, phone, or Twitter. The
landing page is currently available in 4 languages, and allows users to
contact almost all 751 MEPs. We're working right now on getting it
translated in more languages. While some campaign pages have focused on
targeting specific undecided or opposition MEPs, we felt it was important
for the Wikimedia community in particular to feel fully represented in this
There is also a secondary informational page on Meta where we have
gathered some information and resources for the community to use in their
messaging. In turn, we are asking community members to add any new blog
posts, chapter statements, or resources that they have created to this
secondary page as well so it can truly encapsulate the Wikimedia movement’s
work on this subject.
What you can do. Our main goal over the next week is to publicize this page
and our position as widely as possible -- this is a grassroots mobilization
campaign, and therefore we need to see a large amount of engagement with
the “Contact Your MEP” tool for this to be effective. If you are an EU
citizen, please use the tool! If you feel so obliged, you can also support
by engaging in our #fixcopyright social media campaign and linking to the
page, or by sharing as statement by Wikimedia Foundation Board Chair María
Sefidari Huici statement which also includes the link to our landing
Questions? If you have any questions about this campaign, or would like to
get involved in the translation of our resources, please contact me
directly at jgerlach(a)wikimedia.org or subscribe to the public policy
mailing list to discuss.
Sr. Public Policy Manager
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104