To the question of who, how, whether, and for what, individuals should receive direct financial support for their volunteer contributions - I leave that to the discussions of movement Strategy and Charter.
To the specific question of if the eventual revenue raised via ‘Wikimedia Enterprise’ commercial services should be directed towards that outcome:
We (the ‘Enterprise team), and also the WMF board in their statement on the matter [1], have been quite clear in the design of the project that its revenues will go into the same processes, and receive the same oversight and decision-making as any other revenue - including however those processes might change over time with movement strategy implementation.
It would be an unhelpful precedent to direct revenue from one specific input, towards one specific purpose. By analogy: we don’t allocate “revenue from X Wikipedia language banners in Y will pay for Z project”.
- Liam / Wittylama
P.S. just for clarity: the commercial service of ‘Wikimedia Enterprise’ is the *service* (API access, customer service agents, SLA contract), and NOT the content.
Hi Tito and all,
Tito said, in part,
1) Okay, we have an "urgent" policy. What is the plan and procedure to safeguard the human rights of someone? Example: If a Wikimedian's human right is in danger for using Wikimedia's/OSM's disputed map[1], what's the "exact" procedure?
I do understand that the implementation plan is to be made (around 13:48 of the video[2]) and I fully understand that it is going to be difficult on a global scale. However the execution plan and procedure will be more important.
4) (around 20:00 of the video) "Three people on the Wikimedia-l mailing list asked ..." I am one of the three I don't think we/I asked about royalty etc. What we speak about is about Wikimedians' lives in different socio-economic backgrounds. This is connected with editor retention, community health, (and human rights). I'll be very happy to discuss it separately on my Meta-Wiki talk page[3] or elsewhere.
As for the first question, it is early days, but could you give some indication what you think you can do to safeguard someone's human rights in another country? You could open communication channels to human rights organisations, perhaps, and inform them of problematic cases. Is this the kind of action you have in mind? I must say I sympathise with what Geni says in his mail – surely the WMF is quite limited in what it can do. Geni's point about the WMF potentially being perceived as a hostile campaigner (or, I would add, even a US foreign policy instrument), thus increasing the risks of participation for individuals, is worth pondering as well.
As Tito says, there was also a question about the feasibility of royalties. This mentioned Tito's and others' posts here, though I think the questioner was only using those questions about healthcare and minimum pay as a springboard for their own question. They wondered whether there was any way to get royalties or licence fees from re-users who use more than a certain volume of Wikimedia data, and to provide support to volunteers in this manner. The answer was that it didn't seem likely. But it occurred to me that the for-profit Wikimedia Enterprise is doing a similar thing, charging large re-users for API services. So couldn't some of the profits from that business be used in the way the questioner suggested? The money would come from much the same companies.
Andreas
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/FIAT43C22XI24RS4MZSPDE2NZT75BPEW/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
| Liam Wyatt [Wittylama] Program Manager
for Enterprise, WikiCite, and Newcomer Experience
Wikimedia Foundation |
|