I think if anyone were to pay, they should all pay at the same rate,
according to their usage.
Moreover, those whose usage is minimal should not pay at all. You might
have a threshold – say, if it's $X or less, no need to pay a dime.
So the Indian or African start-up would have access for free, while the
search giants might pay what is, from the WMF perspective, a considerable
sum (but peanuts for them).
What is vitally important though is that no one should be able to buy a
better service just because they are rich. That would just slant the
playing field in favour of the existing giants and suppress competition.
That would be an evil thing to do.
But if the above caveats are observed, it might be a good idea.
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>
additional revenue sources isn't a bad idea, but charging for
premium access is likely to annoy the community to a degree that will
the great Visual Editor revolt look like some
quiet and polite murmuring.
That's definitely a conversation worth having, as it helps us understand
what we want to do, and who we want to be.
Do we want to charge for knowledge? Of course not. But do we want to be
able to introduce cool new tools for everyone faster, because e.g. Google
is willing to pay for their development if they can use it for some time
earlier as "premium"? I don't know yet. Let's talk.
I don't intuitively object to Google paying for some additional features,
they ride on the back of our content in many situations, and we don't even
know how many people see it (content is cached).
I do, however, believe that if we ever decide to do this, with the
community's backing, any charging should resemble grants a bit (there
should be a clear time horizon when what we are able to develop as "
premium" becomes standard and free; if it is also useful for the general
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org