Hi there,
I am not sure which would be the preferred mailing list for this kind of a suggestion (wikitech, comcom, internal, this one) so I flipped two coins.
As far as I know, we are constantly blocking people when they are live-mirroring Wikipedia (instead of downloading the dump or negotiating a data feed). Apart from that, there is no consequence for the people running a live mirror. I remember at least one instance in which the person running the mirror tried to change IP addresses faster than they were blocked.
I can imagine that this is a time-consuming and sometimes frustrating effort. My suggestion would be not to block these IP addresses any more but to deliver slightly modified content to them, basically the same Wikipedia text plus a ad banner or Google Adsense box right above the text or next to it. That way, it would at least be of some sort of reward for the foundation running the servers...
What do you think about it?
Mathias
We do not, nor should not, place advertising on our content, whether its only displayed on some connections or not. If others want to, ok, but we dont, because we create that content, and it gives the illusion of endorsement. This is a no go, in my eyes.
On 5/30/07, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
I am not sure which would be the preferred mailing list for this kind of a suggestion (wikitech, comcom, internal, this one) so I flipped two coins.
As far as I know, we are constantly blocking people when they are live-mirroring Wikipedia (instead of downloading the dump or negotiating a data feed). Apart from that, there is no consequence for the people running a live mirror. I remember at least one instance in which the person running the mirror tried to change IP addresses faster than they were blocked.
I can imagine that this is a time-consuming and sometimes frustrating effort. My suggestion would be not to block these IP addresses any more but to deliver slightly modified content to them, basically the same Wikipedia text plus a ad banner or Google Adsense box right above the text or next to it. That way, it would at least be of some sort of reward for the foundation running the servers...
What do you think about it?
Mathias
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
nor should we*
On 5/30/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
We do not, nor should not, place advertising on our content, whether its only displayed on some connections or not. If others want to, ok, but we dont, because we create that content, and it gives the illusion of endorsement. This is a no go, in my eyes.
On 5/30/07, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
I am not sure which would be the preferred mailing list for this kind of a suggestion (wikitech, comcom, internal, this one) so I flipped two coins.
As far as I know, we are constantly blocking people when they are live-mirroring Wikipedia (instead of downloading the dump or negotiating a data feed). Apart from that, there is no consequence for the people running a live mirror. I remember at least one instance in which the person running the mirror tried to change IP addresses faster than they were blocked.
I can imagine that this is a time-consuming and sometimes frustrating effort. My suggestion would be not to block these IP addresses any more but to deliver slightly modified content to them, basically the same Wikipedia text plus a ad banner or Google Adsense box right above the text or next to it. That way, it would at least be of some sort of reward for the foundation running the servers...
What do you think about it?
Mathias
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- -Brock
Hoi, This is a can of wurms you do not want to open.. Anyway, there are plenty of people that disagree with your point of view. The fact that we create content is in and of itself not an argument in this.
What planet are you from that you consider an advert an endorsement. There are for instance plenty of Linux websites with Microsoft adverts, nobody in his right mind will construe this as an endorsement. Thanks, GerardM
On 5/30/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
We do not, nor should not, place advertising on our content, whether its only displayed on some connections or not. If others want to, ok, but we dont, because we create that content, and it gives the illusion of endorsement. This is a no go, in my eyes.
On 5/30/07, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
I am not sure which would be the preferred mailing list for this kind of a suggestion (wikitech, comcom, internal, this one) so I flipped two coins.
As far as I know, we are constantly blocking people when they are live-mirroring Wikipedia (instead of downloading the dump or negotiating a data feed). Apart from that, there is no consequence for the people running a live mirror. I remember at least one instance in which the person running the mirror tried to change IP addresses faster than they were blocked.
I can imagine that this is a time-consuming and sometimes frustrating effort. My suggestion would be not to block these IP addresses any more but to deliver slightly modified content to them, basically the same Wikipedia text plus a ad banner or Google Adsense box right above the text or next to it. That way, it would at least be of some sort of reward for the foundation running the servers...
What do you think about it?
Mathias
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- -Brock _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5/30/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
We do not, nor should not, place advertising on our content, whether its only displayed on some connections or not.
I totally agree on the sentence "We do nor, nor should we, place advertisements on our site" (as long as we have other options how to keep the site alive).
Mathias
On May 30, 2007, at 3:13 AM, Brock Weller wrote:
We do not, nor should not, place advertising on our content, whether its only displayed on some connections or not. If others want to, ok, but we dont, because we create that content, and it gives the illusion of endorsement. This is a no go, in my eyes.
I don't find this argument to be particularly compelling. This is people who are hot-loading our content and displaying it on other websites, under their own branding. Why should we not, rather than blocking this activity, find a way to benefit from it?
--Jimbo
On 30/05/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 3:13 AM, Brock Weller wrote:
We do not, nor should not, place advertising on our content, whether its only displayed on some connections or not. If others want to, ok, but we dont, because we create that content, and it gives the illusion of endorsement. This is a no go, in my eyes.
I don't find this argument to be particularly compelling. This is people who are hot-loading our content and displaying it on other websites, under their own branding. Why should we not, rather than blocking this activity, find a way to benefit from it?
We do. We block it and ask them to pay us :-)
In a practical sense, I feel the benefit of adding advertising to these live mirrors would be outweighed by the negative reaction, but that's just a gut feeling.
On 5/30/07, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I know, we are constantly blocking people when they are live-mirroring Wikipedia (instead of downloading the dump or negotiating a data feed). Apart from that, there is no consequence for the people running a live mirror. I remember at least one instance in which the person running the mirror tried to change IP addresses faster than they were blocked.
The problem with serving advertising is that the third party users will simply filter it. They typically already rewrite the HTML in order to adapt it to whatever context they use it in. Then we end up in the same situation we have right now, except with additional management complexity of tracking down the "ad-filtering" live feeds.
It may make more sense to serve a standard message on every hit "This site is hotloading Wikimedia content, which is not permitted. The site administrator is encouraged to contact us at FOO to negotiate hot loading conditions."
In general, I think the right way to negotiate such agreements is to have revenue sharing deals.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mathias Schindler wrote:
I can imagine that this is a time-consuming and sometimes frustrating effort.
Honestly we don't spend a lot of effort on it.
My suggestion would be not to block these IP addresses any more but to deliver slightly modified content to them, basically the same Wikipedia text plus a ad banner or Google Adsense box right above the text or next to it. That way, it would at least be of some sort of reward for the foundation running the servers...
That would probably violate the terms and get our Adsense account canceled. :)
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Mathias Schindler wrote:
I can imagine that this is a time-consuming and sometimes frustrating effort.
Honestly we don't spend a lot of effort on it.
I find it a fun task, I update the squid conf from time to time, but can not sync it. There is a list on meta with some kind of status:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Live_mirrors
cheers,
Well then, looks like I got dragged out behind the woodshed. :) My objection to this is dropped.
On 5/30/07, Ashar Voultoiz hashar@altern.org wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Mathias Schindler wrote:
I can imagine that this is a time-consuming and sometimes frustrating effort.
Honestly we don't spend a lot of effort on it.
I find it a fun task, I update the squid conf from time to time, but can not sync it. There is a list on meta with some kind of status:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Live_mirrorscheers,
-- Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/ IM: hashar@jabber.org ICQ: 15325080
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5/31/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mathias Schindler wrote:
I can imagine that this is a time-consuming and sometimes frustrating effort.
Honestly we don't spend a lot of effort on it.
Relevant question: if a website hosts our mirror (not as live-feed, but using the dumb), but uses our brand (say "XX[their trademark] Wikipedia"), can we hinder them to download our content?
On 07/06/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mathias Schindler wrote:
I can imagine that this is a time-consuming and sometimes frustrating effort.
Honestly we don't spend a lot of effort on it.
Relevant question: if a website hosts our mirror (not as live-feed, but using the dumb), but uses our brand (say "XX[their trademark] Wikipedia"), can we hinder them to download our content?
There would be no practical way to do so - how could we stop one person among a thousand getting the dump? - making the question pretty academic.
We can, however, send them lots of politely worded nasty letters...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org