Do you think?
I'm genuinely not sure.
I think that the difference in scale from what Google does with our data
and the general developer/researcher is pretty big. One million times big.
I actually think that "over-the-top" players like Google do actually
exploit free licensed materials like Wikipedia... I mean, their Knowledge
Vault is probably 100 bigger than Wikidata, but they are not supposed to
share it. It's an internal asset. And it's not matter of CC0 or CCBYSA:
they can keep it hidden.
There very, very few players who can exploit commons like this: do we
need/have the right to address this? Is it a problem?
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>
On 16 January 2016 at 19:23, Pete Forsyth
I'm interested to hear some perspectives on
the following line of
Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to
services and APIs,
expanding major donor and foundation
providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free
access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation
in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising
The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some
of these potential
strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
Looking for additional revenue sources isn't a bad idea, but charging for
premium access is likely to annoy the community to a degree that will make
the great Visual Editor revolt look like some quiet and polite murmuring.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org