Dear WMF accounts staff,
Could you kindly clarify whether the "Salaries, other compensation,
employee benefits" figure in Part I, line 15 of the Form 990 relates solely
to the 291 employees indicated in Part I, line 5, or whether it also
includes salaries, compensation and benefits for the 82 contractors listed
in Part V, line 1a of the Form 990.
Thank you.
Andreas
Hello everyone,
TLDR; Wikimedia will soon be applying as a mentoring organization to Google
Summer of Code 2022 <https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com> [1] and Outreachy
Round 24 <https://www.outreachy.org/> [2]. We are currently working on a
list of interesting project ideas to include in the application. If you
have some ideas for coding or non-coding (design, documentation,
translation, outreach, research) projects, share them here: <
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299453> [3].
*Timeline*
As a mentor, you will engage potential candidates in the application period
for both programs between March and April. You will help candidates make
small contributions to your project and answer any project-related queries
during this time. You will work more closely with the accepted candidates
during the coding period between May and August.
*New changes are coming to GSoC*
GSoC has exciting changes this year, including:
* Eligibility criteria redefined–the program is now open to all open-source
newcomers 18 years and older. It will no longer be solely focused on
university students or recent graduates.
* Multiple sizes of projects supported–ranging from ~175 to ~350 hr long.
* Increased flexibility in project timing–project deadline can be extended
to up to 22 weeks.
*Tips for proposing projects*
* Follow this task description template when you propose a project in
Phabricator: <
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/outreach-programs-projects> [4]. Add
#Google- Summer-of-Code (2022) or #Outreachy (Round 24) tag.
* Project should require an experienced developer ~15 days and a newcomer
~3 months to complete.
* Each project should have at least two mentors, and one of them should
hold a technical background.
* Ideally, the project has no tight deadlines, a moderate learning curve,
and fewer dependencies on Wikimedia's core infrastructure. Projects
addressing the needs of a language community are most welcome!
* If you don't have an idea in mind and would like to pick one from an
existing list, check out these projects: <
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/outreach-programs-projects/> [4]
* To learn more about the roles and responsibilities of mentors, visit our
resources on MediaWiki.org: <
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreachy/Mentors> [5], <
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code/Mentors> [6].
Cheers,
Srishti
[1] https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com
[2] https://www.outreachy.org/
[3] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299453
[4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/outreach-programs-projects/
[5] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreachy/Mentors
[6] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code/Mentors
*Srishti Sethi*
Senior Developer Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
Hello everyone,
(This statement is available on Meta-Wiki for translation and wider
distribution)
Today, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees published a statement
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Janu…>
supporting a community vote on the proposed enforcement guidelines
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guide…>
for the Universal Code of Conduct
<https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct> (UCoC).
One of the key recommendations
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recomme…>of
the strategic goals for 2030 was the collaborative creation of a UCoC to
provide a global baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement
without tolerance for harassment. The global Wikimedia community must work
well together in producing knowledge resources for the benefit of the
world. Forging welcoming, inclusive, harassment-free spaces in which people
can contribute productively and debate constructively is critical for the
movement’s success.
The Board continues to stand by its May 2020 statement
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_…>
on “Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces” that,
“harassment, toxic behavior, and incivility in the Wikimedia movement are
contrary to our shared values and detrimental to our vision & mission” and
to our joint strategic goals
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recomme…>
for 2030.
The ratification of the collaboratively created UCoC last year was a
notable milestone, and hopefully the discussion on the ratification process
for the collaboratively created enforcement guidelines proposal today will
lead to another one.
The enforcement guidelines proposal is a major achievement of thoughtful
co-creation for the global communities that took part in the months of
consultations, the volunteers leading the drafting committee itself, and
the Foundation. The Board is very grateful to the volunteers and staff
members who collaboratively co-created first the UCoC itself that the
trustees ratified last year, and now the enforcement guideline proposal.
While the UCoC is already in effect, the completion and ratification of the
guidelines will allow everyone to begin a period of assessing how they
function, in action. We should collectively discover where both the
original document and the pathways to enforce it work well and where they
need to be improved. Once the guidelines are adopted, communities and the
Foundation will begin to collect information on how they are working for
the subsequent review of both after a year.
The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of
Arbitration Committees
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Tr…>
for community voting on the enforcement guidelines proposal prior to the
Board’s own ratification of the final guidelines. Trustees also recognize
the support of such a vote expressed by surveyed volunteer functionaries,
affiliate members, and the drafting committee.
Based on their input, and aligned with processes used for the Wikimedia
Foundation Board Elections, all registered Wikimedia contributors who meet
minimum activity requirements, affiliate and Foundation staff and
contractors (employed prior to 1/17/22), and current and former Foundation
trustees, will have the opportunity to vote on the enforcement guidelines
proposal in SecurePoll.
A threshold of above 50% support of participating users will be needed to
move on to Board of Trustees ratification. If the majority of voters oppose
the adoption of the guidelines as written, they will be asked which
elements need to be changed and why. This would allow for another round of
edits to address community concerns prior to another vote, if needed. Both
the UCoC and the enforcement guidelines (after ratified), will also be open
for review and voter-endorsed amendments annually.
The Board asks every member of the Wikimedia communities to continue
creating a safe and welcoming culture that stops hostile and toxic
behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and assists good-faith
people.
The Board believes these enforcement guidelines, once finalized, will be an
important step in encouraging productive work on the Wikimedia projects.
The Board hopes that you will step in to review and provide your feedback
and thoughts in the vote, so that the ratification process can start with a
strong preliminary approach.
On behalf of the Board,
Shani Evenstein Sigalov
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees.
Chair, Community Affairs Committee.
Shani Evenstein Sigalov
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/shani-evenstein-sigalov/>
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
Hello everyone,
( Read this message in other languages on Meta
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_Com…>:
العربية • deutsch • español • français • Русский • 中文)
You are invited to join our next *Conversation with the Trustees* on *17
February at 18:30 UTC* (check your local time
<https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1645122658>).
The event is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees’ Community
Affairs Committee (CAC)
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_Com…>.
The Board of Trustees is a volunteer body of movement leaders and external
experts in charge of guiding the Wikimedia Foundation and ensuring its
accountability. This forum is an opportunity for the community to directly
engage with Trustees and talk openly about our work.
We will be hosting this conversation on Zoom with a live YouTube stream
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCU7aObkG84>.
The call will be 90 minutes: a 10 minute introduction, then a 20 minute
update from Trustees and Wikimedia Foundation staff, and the remaining time
dedicated to open Q&A and conversation.
We want to make these calls interactive, so we encourage as many of you as
possible to join us directly in Zoom. All community members in good
standing will be able to join us there.* Request the Zoom link by emailing
askcac(a)wikimedia.org <askcac(a)wikimedia.org>*.
If you would like to be added to a list to receive emails with Zoom links
for these calls in the future, please indicate that in your email.
We will work to provide interpretation for languages with five or more
interested community members. *To request interpretation, please email
askcac(a)wikimedia.org <askcac(a)wikimedia.org>. *You can do this up until 5
days before the meeting to allow us to make the necessary arrangements.
Closer to the date we will send out a *reminder with more information about
the agenda*, but for now please *save the date and register* for the Zoom
room!
A final note -- in our last meeting (October 2021), we shared that we plan
to meet again on December 2021. This meeting was pushed to Jan, and then
Feb, in order to allow for more of the Trustees and Foundation leadership
to join, including our new CEO.
We have made necessary arrangements so that this year we will be able to
meet the community more regularly (every other month). You will find
the planned
dates of future meetings throughout the year
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Comm…>
on Meta, so you can hopefully "save the date" in advance.
Hoping to see as many of you as possible,
Shani (on behalf of the CAC).
Shani Evenstein Sigalov
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/shani-evenstein-sigalov/>
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
Dear All,
Please join me in welcoming Luis Bitencourt-Emilio to the Wikimedia
Foundation Board of Trustees. Luis was unanimously appointed to a 3-year
term and replaces a board-selected Trustee, Lisa Lewin, whose term ended in
November 2021 [1].
Currently based in São Paulo, Luis is the Chief Technology Officer at Loft,
a technology startup in the real-estate industry. He brings product and
technology experience from a globally diverse career that has spanned large
technology companies including Microsoft, online networking sites like
Reddit, and a series of entrepreneurial technology ventures focused in the
USA and Latin America. Luis has led product and technology teams across
Latin America, the United States, Europe and Asia. He is passionately
involved in building and promoting the entrepreneurial ecosystem for Latin
American-based startups.
Luis has more than two decades of experience across product development,
software engineering, and data science. At Microsoft, he led engineering
teams shipping multiple Microsoft Office products. At Reddit, he led the
Knowledge Group, an engineering team that owned critical functions such as
data, machine learning, abuse detection and search. He was deeply involved
in Reddit’s growth stage and worked closely with Reddit’s communities in
that evolution. Luis also co-founded a fintech startup to help millennials
manage and automate their finances.
His career has also been shaped by a visible commitment to recruiting
diverse leaders. At Reddit, Luis was a key member of the recruitment
efforts that achieved equal representation of women engineering directors.
Luis says his proudest achievement at Microsoft was building their
Brazilian talent pipeline by working closely with local universities to
place thousands of engineering candidates at Microsoft, as well as his
involvement in expanding global recruitment to markets including Ukraine,
Poland, Great Britain, the EU and Mexico.
Luis was educated in Brazil and the United States, receiving a Bachelor of
Science in Computer Engineering with Honors from the University of
Maryland. He is fluent in Portuguese, Spanish and English. He is also a
proud father and dog lover.
I would like to thank the Governance Committee, chaired by Dariusz
Jemielniak, for this nomination process as well as volunteers in our
Spanish and Portuguese speaking communities who also met with Luis or
shared their experiences.
You can find an official announcement here [2].
PS. You can help translate or find translations of this message on
Meta-Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Janu…
[1] Lisa Lewin served from January 2019 till November 2021:
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Renewing_Lisa_Lewin%E2%80%…
[2]
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/12/luis-bitencourt-emilio-joins-wikimedi…
Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!*
Hi all,
We've just published a blog post summarising the new features and
functionality available to active Wikipedia editors in The Wikipedia
Library:
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/19/the-wikipedia-library-accessing-free-…
The Wikipedia Library is a tool providing active Wikipedia editors with
free access to otherwise-paywalled resources, including journals, books,
newspapers, magazines, and databases. Over the past 5-10 years the library
has built up a large collection of content from a wide range of publishers.
In the past couple of years we've been finalising the centralised Wikipedia
Library tool used for accessing all this content:
https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/. I'm really pleased to announce that
we've finished work on some long-requested and planned features which make
it really simple to use!
The library now has:
- Proxy-based authentication for direct access of resources without a
secondary login
- A centralised search feature for browsing multiple collections from
one place
- An on-wiki notification to let editors know about the library when
they have crossed the eligibility threshold (rolling out in stages
throughout January)
As the project I first joined the Wikimedia Foundation to work on years ago
I'm personally thrilled that we've finally been able to deploy all these
features!
If you're eligible to use the library (500+ edits, 6+ months editing) you
can jump in and start using the library straight away. We're now working on
expanding and diversifying the content available in the library, so let us
know on the suggestions page if there are collections you want us to make
available: https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/suggest/
If the tool isn't currently localised into your language, you can translate
it on TranslateWiki:
https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Wikipedia_Library_Card_Platform
We're planning to host some Office Hours, which will be a chance to get a
walkthrough of how to use the library, as well as discuss your research
needs and requests for new collections with the team. Look out for more on
that in the coming weeks.
--
Sam Walton
Product Manager, The Wikipedia Library
swalton(a)wikimedia.org
Dear Wikimedians,
Happy Monday! Recently, we have announced EduWiki Week
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/EduWiki_Week_2022>! A virtual
festival for free knowledge in education, from 21st February 2022 to 25th
February 2022. This will be a hybrid event with asynchronous activities,
live interviews, and a final community showcase session. Stay tuned for
more updates!
The community showcase session will be on the 23rd of February from 13:00
UTC till 16:00 UTC. You can submit a proposal to highlight your work,
ideas, research or tools with the education community. The deadline to
submit a proposal is now extended till the 4th of February. Submit your
proposal here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/EduWiki_Week_2022#Community_Showc…>
.
If you or your affiliate plan to organize regional events during the week,
like interviews, edit-a-thons, training or other events, please add them
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/EduWiki_Week_2022#Asynchronous_Ce…>
to the asynchronous celebrations section.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
Sailesh (Wikimedia Foundation), Florencia (WM Argentina), Klara (WM
Polska), Vjollca (WM of Albanian Languages UG), Will (WikiEducation),
Kashyap, Elfego (Wikimedia Foundation).
--
Sailesh Patnaik (He/Him)
Program Officer, Education
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation’s Global Advocacy team is excited to announce the
approval of the Human Rights Policy
<https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Policy#Frequently_Asked_…>
by the Board of Trustees on 8 December 2021. Please read our blog post
<https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/12/09/what-the-wikimedia-foundations-new-hu…>
about the policy and what it means for the Wikimedia Foundation’s work in
the coming years on Diff. We invite you to join representatives of the
Foundation’s Global Advocacy and Human Rights teams here
<http://meet.google.com/wio-vdkw-phd> for a conversation hour tomorrow, 10
December, at 10:00 AM ET (15:00 UTC) to address any immediate concerns,
questions, or suggestions regarding this policy or how it will be
implemented. The session will be recorded for later viewing and you may
submit questions by email to myself (rgaines(a)wikimedia.org) and Ziski Putz (
zputz(a)wikimedia.org) ahead of or following the conversation hour.
Additional conversation hours on this policy will be made available in the
coming weeks.
Best regards,
--
*Ricky Gaines *(he/him/his)
Senior Manager, Advocacy Audiences
Wikimedia Foundation
rgaines(a)wikimedia.org
Before this last 21st day in the 21st year of 21st century
is globally over, I try to re-initiate re-thinking
on this 15 years old proposal for a Wikipedian-in-residence
http://original-research.blogspot.com/2006/12/wikipedian-in-residence-propo…
but also articles in (only) 27 language Wikipedias,
Meta, Outreach wiki and elsewhere
for updating the notion of WIR and roles it performs in Wikimedia,
an ecosystem of diverse entities, dynamics and relations.
As Wikimedians with wider perspective than a single wiki project, often
more than a single language and for sure more than single community, gear
up to discuss and act on 2030 strategy, that includes new initiatives, new
formations of decentering resources, new content, forms and methods of
working, with new priorities, conditions, tools, services and what
not…there is also a value in reflecting and reimagining what is already
established but often overlooked practice.
Some of the WIR practitioners have been self-reflecting on and off publicly
https://wikistrategies.net/5-things-wikipedian-in-residence/ and engaging
with communities https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc9YgFm2eso there was also
network establishment.
3 years ago WREN UG (Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network User Group)
was recognized with the aim to protect the common elements of the role and
for creating a peer support network of new and experienced WIRs for
collaboration and to encourage a global professional environment which
inspires institutions to appoint persons to engage with Wikimedia.
In recent times Wikipedian-in-Residence, is more often
Wikimedian-in-Residence, in rapid growth of Commons and Wikidata (but also
in 2021 first one in Wiktionary) and sometimes Wikimedian-at-Large, in more
generalized practice of strategy or direction setting work.
Additionally in time of pandemic when doing physical events is challenging
and many of the (potential) partner organizations are closing down or
limiting public events to bare essential, short and transient it is more
important than ever that individuals (rather than cohorts of editathon
enthusiasts) keep revisiting institutions and work with them in a most
flexible mode and scale.
Finally to start both re-visioning and maybe even re-positioning WIRs in
Wikimedia we should think of what this network of ‘free agents’ can bring
towards 2030, beyond what WMF, affiliates, UGs, HUBs, WikiProjects and
other organizational forms can. Also think how much more useful this
initial inspiration of artists, writers and researchers in residence could
be if these creative and critical roles in the art and cultural sector get
embraced and encouraged more often and more intentionally.
Z. Blace
Hi everyone,
we had articles in Germany published connecting the activities of Wikimedia
Enterprise with our licensing advocacy. Please find below the article of a
filmmaker, published last week in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one
of the large German newspapers. Below you find our response, published this
week in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. I hope this is useful for
further debates.
Kind regards
Christian
*******************************************
*Wikimedia perverts the common good*
<https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/wikimedia-plant-die-kommerzia…>
*Wikimedia plans to commercialize its content. At the same time, the
organization is lobbying hard to get its hands on high-quality free content
from public broadcasters. This is ruining the filmmakers*.
The Wikipedia information platform has so far been financed by donations
from Silicon Valley tech giants, among others. These include primarily the
market-dominating Internet giants such as Google, Facebook, Apple et
cetera, all of which earn money through traffic with content from
Wikipedia. In specialist circles, these donations are regarded as a
reciprocal business: Donors and Wikipedia profit from each other.
Wikimedia is the operating organization behind Wikipedia, but it has long
been looking for a stable business model to finance itself. In the spring
of 2021, Wikimedia finally announced that it would build a corporate
interface that would simplify the automated use of Wikipedia content and
for which commercial companies would pay. In other words: money is to be
made with the content on Wikipedia. For example, with services such as the
voice assistants Siri <https://www.faz.net/aktuell/technik-motor/thema/siri>
or Alexa, which access content via Wikipedia. The donation business based
on reciprocity, as described above, would thus be transformed into a proper
business relationship. The name for it: Wikimedia Enterprise API.
For this business to be profitable in the long term, Wikimedia must ensure
the comprehensive supply of information on Wikipedia, but also enhance it
for the social networks
<https://www.faz.net/aktuell/technik-motor/thema/soziale-netzwerke> with
high-quality images and films. Expanded offerings increase demand. And in
order to secure the capital-rich clientele in the long term - according to
the law of Internet capitalism - Wikipedia could also become the dominant
platform in the education sector for images and films that can be accessed
as free as possible.
Contempt for the state and collectivism
Wikimedia Deutschland's intensive lobbying campaign for so-called "free
licenses", which has been ongoing for several years, should also be
understood in this context. Public films, especially documentaries, are to
be offered free of charge on Wikipedia via CC licensing (Creative Commons
licenses). Many know this campaign under the formula "Public money = Public
good". A vulgarization of the idea of the common good that devalues the
legal status of goods whose production takes place through state
redistribution or in publicly supported economic segments such as the film
and television industry. The claim is an expression of a typical
contemporary amalgamation of libertarian contempt for the state and
collectivist ideals, which in this case hides quite shamelessly behind
rhetoric about the common good and flickering fantasies of the "free
Internet”.
In recent years, Wikimedia's lobbying activities around the reform of
European copyright law have resulted in striking rejection from German
production and copyright associations. With the public broadcasters, on the
other hand, they have been somewhat successful: At the intensive
instigation of Wikimedia, there have been pilot tests with CC-licensed
clips from productions of the "Terra X" documentary series (ZDF) in the
last two years. And indeed, CC clauses are increasingly found in the fine
print of individual Terra X production contracts. This is the result of
so-called "round tables" at which, it should be noted, no representation of
the German producer community was present. Wikimedia, at any rate, is
celebrating its statistics today; the Terra-X clips are generating
respectable user numbers on the Wikipedia page.
The German film and television industry and all those creatively involved
are now rubbing their eyes in the face of how this rose-tinted deception is
catching on, not only among broadcaster executives but also in media policy
circles. They have all failed to ask the obvious question: Why does
Wikimedia need CC-licensed public service content at all? Wikimedia could
also simply enter into a blanket licensing agreement with the relevant
collecting societies such as VG Bild-Kunst. Just like schools,
universities, and libraries do. And just as Wikimedia itself wants to
conclude user agreements with Google
<https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/thema/google>, Apple, Amazon or
Facebook for facilitated access to content held on Wikipedia. It would be
easy to solve all the legal issues. And thanks to the collecting societies
that represent the interests of filmmakers, authors and ancillary copyright
holders would also have their fair or livelihood-protecting share of the
money flows.
Propaganda for "free licenses"
Wikimedia has rejected VG Bild-Kunst's offer to license protected works. As
long as its campaign in Germany has not completely failed, the
organization is apparently continuing to speculate on CC-licensed,
high-quality public-domain freeware, for which it does not have to conclude
licensing agreements with the collecting societies precisely because it is
already CC-licensed. A good deal for Wikimedia and the Internet giants. A
disastrous one for the production landscape.
Notwithstanding. Self-publication of content via Creative Commons on
subject-specific platforms or in social media makes perfect sense for
certain content such as academic publications or even NGO or hobby films.
Professional film works, on the other hand, always represent bundles of
legally guaranteed legal rights for script, direction, production, camera,
music et cetera. Films created under professional market conditions are
simply not suitable for simplified publication via Creative Commons
licensing.
Wikimedia ignores these facts in its ongoing propaganda about "free
licenses" and waves away the criticism with colorful flags that say "common
good". In their own interest. At the expense of us filmmakers, at the
expense of authors and copyright holders.
The German film and television landscape is facing enormous challenges due
to the growing importance of platforms and the resulting dynamics in the
audiovisual market. Perhaps as never before. At this time, it is crucial
that those with political responsibility as well as the public broadcasters
use these challenges in intensive dialog with filmmakers as an opportunity
to sustainably strengthen the production landscape in all its diversity.
Even better, to allow its creative power to unfold better than before.
What filmmakers need for this are stable legal foundations and fair market
standards. The stickers with the vulgar formula "public money = public
good" call these foundations into question. They should now finally be
scraped off the windshields of media policy in Germany.
David Bernet is a documentary filmmaker and co-chair of AG DOK
(Professional Association of Documentary Filmmakers in Germany).
***************************************************
Free licenses for the common good
<https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/wikimedia-ard-und-zdf-freie-lizenzen…>
by Dr. Christian Humborg, Executive Director of Wikimedia Deutschland
Public money - public good! With this formula, Wikimedia Deutschland is
campaigning for knowledge content that is financed with tax money or the
broadcasting fee to be available to everyone. Some see their business model
threatened by this demand. "This is ruining filmmakers," reads an opinion
piece published this week by documentary filmmaker and co-chair of AG DOK,
David Bernet.
This is a view that ignores the possibility of new financing models,
especially for filmmakers and media professionals - and above all the
absolute necessity of finally adapting the public broadcasting system in
Germany to the realities of the 21st century. Politicians and the
broadcasting commissions of the federal states themselves have long
recognized that something has to be done. Broadcasting content only via the
traditional channels of radio and television no longer does justice to the
mission of the public broadcasters. If you want to create good, reliable
content for everyone, you have to offer it in the way it is used today:
Accessible at any time, shareable, adaptable.
It is alarming that, in this situation, creative people are being ground
down in the dispute between content exploiters such as film companies and
publishers, platforms, public broadcasters and politicians. But it is
incomprehensible that David Bernet points the finger at Wikipedia and
Wikimedia, of all places.
The knowledge content financed by taxes and broadcasting fees is manifold,
but access and use are anything but self-evident: Why are publicly financed
research data behind paywalls of private specialist publishers? Why is the
Axel Springer publishing house forced to acquire rights for the broadcast
of the historically significant Elefantenrunde on election night? Why don't
public broadcasters make these rights available from the outset, especially
when it comes to purely in-house productions? Wikimedia is not concerned
with entertainment or weekly sporting events. But publicly funded knowledge
content should be free. It should be permanently findable, usable and
available regardless of location.
Freely licensed - and adequately funded
Creatives - apart from a few superstars - still earn far too little money
from their valuable work. Interest groups and employer organizations, above
all public broadcasters, urgently need to work on fair remuneration. At the
same time, it is also a matter of greater public appreciation of their
work. I hardly know any creatives who are only concerned about the money
and not also about attention. Provided that they are fairly remunerated,
free licenses can address both points.
If creators receive five euros for their content and another one euro each
for two subsequent uses, what would be so bad about it if they received
seven euros instead and the work was free for that? Also in terms of
predictable financial planning, I would prefer the latter. In fact,
creatives are regularly confronted with so-called total buyout clauses as
the only contract model, but without free licensing and without reuse
options.
Regardless of the financing, the free licensing of content often fails due
to the lack of suitable contract templates. Experience shows that those who
have to deal with the necessary formalities for every project again - and
sometimes against resistance - quickly give up. Public broadcasters
therefore urgently need to develop contract templates that enable editorial
teams and commissioned creatives to produce content under free licenses in
an uncomplicated and legally secure manner.
One thing is clear: Whether creators are adequately compensated for their
services by public broadcasters should not depend on licensing. Free
licenses bring great advantages for broadcasters and society, such as
simpler and longer-lasting usability, simpler rights clearance, and
potentially greater visibility. These advantages should also be remunerated
accordingly. In any case, creators and editors must be enabled to use free
licenses without fear of loss of income.
One reason for the difficult negotiating position of creative professionals
is the lack of a strong lobby. For the many creatives, negotiations on an
equal footing would only be possible if individuals did not pull out. Just
how difficult it is to act collectively in the face of monopolists was
demonstrated again in the newspaper market last week, for example, when it
became known that Madsack had signed a contract with Google for Showcase.
The intention to bundle the negotiating power on the side of the content
users in Corint Media did not work out at that point. The role of
collecting societies is extremely important and it is to be welcomed that
they are no longer allowed to represent only their members in some sectors.
It's also about reach
Wikimedia has always urged rights compliance and at the same time called
for the modernization of copyright where it no longer functions reasonably
in a digital age. On the other hand, it was the large advertising platforms
such as YouTube whose rise and growth would hardly have been conceivable
without disregard for legal standards. Precisely because Wikimedia respects
copyright, it relies on free licenses that make it possible for everyone to
use and edit content permanently and in a legally secure manner.
Furthermore, Wikimedia welcomes all considerations for a non-commercial,
European media platform as a basis for the exchange of publicly funded
content. Instead, public broadcasters in EU member states mostly limit
themselves to short-term collaborations, limited also by national
exploitation licenses, while at the same time uploading content to globally
available commercial platforms such as Youtube.
The example of Terra X from ZDF shows that there are distribution
alternatives, such as the Wikimedia platform Commons. The Terra X clips
posted there alone currently achieve more than two million views per month.
To put it in perspective, that's two million views more than if they were
to appear only in the media libraries of the public broadcasters for a year.
Making Terra X clips available benefits the quality of Wikipedia, no
question. But it primarily benefits the viewers - and it's good for Terra
X's sustainable reach. Reaching many people is the mission of public
broadcasters. Not to mention, Wikipedia articles committed to a neutral
point of view are certainly a more suitable environment for public service
information content than YouTube and other commercial platforms.
The collaboration between ZDF and Wikipedia on the Terra-X broadcast comes
from a volunteer group. This group, "Wiki Loves Broadcast," points out in
its response to
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Broadcast/Statement_zum_…>
David Bernet's post that it is solely up to the volunteer community to
incorporate content like ZDF's clips into Wikipedia. Neither Wikimedia
Deutschland nor the Wikimedia Foundation can influence this.
Knowledge that belongs to everyone
Wikimedia is financially independent. Wikimedia is financed by donations
and membership fees from the millions of people who use Wikipedia and other
wiki projects. In concrete terms, Wikimedia Deutschland is backed by just
under 100,000 association members. In total, more than 500,000 people
supported Wikimedia Deutschland financially last year. In 2021, there was
actually money from platforms. While the figure in 2020 was 0%, in 2021 it
accounted for about 0.2% of revenue. I do not see any threat to
independence in this order of magnitude.
Internationally, too, millions of small donations ensure precisely this
independence. For the coming year - as in previous years - we expect
payments from companies and donations of more than $1,000 to account for
less than 20% of the Wikimedia Foundation's total income.
Two things are certain: Wikimedia cannot sell content at all, because
Wikimedia does not own any content, unlike any creative person. No profit
flows from Wikimedia to individuals, but all income is used solely for the
non-profit projects. Personally, I'm glad that among the world's major
internet platforms there is at least one that is not concerned with profit.