On 16 January 2016 at 19:23, Pete Forsyth &lt;peteforsyth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: thinking: the Brace yourselves... strategies. 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. Cheers, Craig _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

What do they cost the foundation for their access? If they put up the costs significantly in way of bandwidth or servers or anything like that, it would be reasonable for them to support the extra costs. Peter -----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Zanni Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 2:08 PM To: Craig Franklin; Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs 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? Aubrey On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Craig Franklin < cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net&gt; wrote: murmuring. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11412 - Release Date: 01/16/16 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I agree with Todd on most, possibly all points, but if Google want to finance faster access for their search engine, in way of hardware, software or development, with no strings attached, as long as it puts no-one at a disadvantage at the time or in future, then why not? Peter -----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Todd Allen Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 6:02 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs I wonder how many ways there are to say "No"? Well, let's start with "no". (My actual thoughts on this idea would probably get me put on moderation, so I'll refrain.) I helped build this project to be freely available to all reusers for all purposes. The WMF's job should be to provide as many ways as possible to make that reuse easy by anyone who wants to, whether that reuser be a multibillion dollar tech company or a kid in sub-Saharan Africa. It is a fundamental principle that no one, ever, should be charged to access, reuse, whatever have you, Wikimedia content. Not even if they could afford to pay. Conversely, Google should never get a foot in the door to control Wikimedia or Mediawiki. And anyone who's writing a check holds some cards. Big check, lot of cards. If they want to donate to Wikimedia (and it'd be in their interest to, they certainly make significant use of our content), great! If they want to donate with strings attached, thanks but no thanks. We're certainly not hurting for money. If they want to pull a recurring donation if we do or don't do something, the answer should always be "Sorry to see you go. Thanks for the donations in the past." I am becoming more and more convinced that the formal vote of no confidence Fae keeps putting forth is in fact necessary. And I don't exactly often agree with Fae, nor am I the Wikipediocracy "Beat up Wikipedia and Wikimedia at every opportunity" type. Rather, it's out of deep concern and care for the project I've spent a lot of time helping to build, and a lot of other people have too. I don't want to take that step, but this has got to stop, here and now. Todd On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11412 - Release Date: 01/16/16 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 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 public).

To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org From: ricordisamoa(a)openmailbox.org Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freemiumly share in the sum of all knowledge." XD Il 16/01/2016 10:23, Pete Forsyth ha scritto: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

To share some context of the discussion the board had around this -- I don't think the minutes give enough detail. APIs -- as we are freely and rapidly creating them today are important, but are not quite at the core of the issue we are facing. Today Wikimedia is the largest internet channel for open free knowledge in the world. But the trends are against us. We have to face them together. We have to have the answers on how. The strategic discussion next week will help guide us. Over the last year we looked at the trends in Wikimedia traffic, internet as a whole and user behaviors. It took a lot of research. When we started the process we have not had solid internal data about unique visitors or human vs. crawler usage on the site. For a top 10 website this is a big issue; it hurts our ability to make smart decisions. We've learned a lot. We found data that supports Leigh's point -- our permissive license supports our core value, we are (I know I am) here for free knowledge. Yet it allows others to use the content in ways that truncates, simplifies and reduces it. More importantly this type of reuse separates our readers from our site, disconnecting readers from our contributors (no edit buttons) and ultimately reduces traffic. Is this a problem? I'd like to hear if people on this list see it as such. And how we sustain contributions over time.

Meanwhile estimated half of our hosting is used to support crawlers that scan our content. This has an associated cost in infrastructure, power, servers, employees to support some well-funded organizations. The content is used for a variety of commercial purposes, sometimes having nothing to do with putting our contributor's work in front of more readers. Still, we can say this is tangentially supportive of our mission.

As these two trends increase without our intervention, our traffic decline will accelerate, our ability to grow editors, content and cover costs will decline as well. The first question on the upcoming consultation next week will be squarely on this. Please help us. API conversation is a consequence of this challenge. If we were to build more for reuse: APIs are a good way to do so. If we are to somehow incentivize users of SIri to come back to Wikipedia, what would we need to do? Should we improve our site so more people come to us directly as the first stop? How do we bring people into our world vs. the world of commercial knowledge out there? How do we fund this if the people moved to access our content through other interfaces (a trend that has been accelerating)? Those are the core questions we need to face. We will have to have some uncomfortable, honest discussions as we test our hypothesis this year. The conversation next week is a good start to prioritize those. Please join it. Lila On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter &lt;osamadre(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: one donations in https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, -- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

To share some context of the discussion the board had around this -- I don't think the minutes give enough detail. APIs -- as we are freely and rapidly creating them today are important, but are not quite at the core of the issue we are facing. Today Wikimedia is the largest internet channel for open free knowledge in the world. But the trends are against us. We have to face them together. We have to have the answers on how. The strategic discussion next week will help guide us. Over the last year we looked at the trends in Wikimedia traffic, internet as a whole and user behaviors. It took a lot of research. When we started the process we have not had solid internal data about unique visitors or human vs. crawler usage on the site. For a top 10 website this is a big issue; it hurts our ability to make smart decisions. We've learned a lot. We found data that supports Leigh's point -- our permissive license supports our core value, we are (I know I am) here for free knowledge. Yet it allows others to use the content in ways that truncates, simplifies and reduces it. More importantly this type of reuse separates our readers from our site, disconnecting readers from our contributors (no edit buttons) and ultimately reduces traffic. Is this a problem? I'd like to hear if people on this list see it as such. And how we sustain contributions over time. Meanwhile estimated half of our hosting is used to support crawlers that scan our content. This has an associated cost in infrastructure, power, servers, employees to support some well-funded organizations. The content is used for a variety of commercial purposes, sometimes having nothing to do with putting our contributor's work in front of more readers. Still, we can say this is tangentially supportive of our mission. As these two trends increase without our intervention, our traffic decline will accelerate, our ability to grow editors, content and cover costs will decline as well. The first question on the upcoming consultation next week will be squarely on this. Please help us. API conversation is a consequence of this challenge. If we were to build more for reuse: APIs are a good way to do so. If we are to somehow incentivize users of SIri to come back to Wikipedia, what would we need to do? Should we improve our site so more people come to us directly as the first stop? How do we bring people into our world vs. the world of commercial knowledge out there? How do we fund this if the people moved to access our content through other interfaces (a trend that has been accelerating)? Those are the core questions we need to face. We will have to have some uncomfortable, honest discussions as we test our hypothesis this year. The conversation next week is a good start to prioritize those. Please join it. Lila On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter &lt;osamadre(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote:

Folks (WMF board, and those closely related), do we really have to hold a vote of no confidence to get your attention? Do you have any doubt that it'd pass?

Absent that, please start listening to the volunteers. Listening, as in doing what they'd like you to do. Otherwise, I'll be putting forth that no-confidence vote shortly.

Hmm. The majority of those crawlers are from search engines - the very search engines that keep us in the top 10 of their results (and often in the top 3), thus leading to the usage and donations that we need to survive. If they have to pay, then they might prefer to change their algorithm, or reduce the frequency of scraping (thus also failing to catch updates to articles including removal of vandalism in the lead paragraphs, which is historically one of the key reasons for frequently crawling the same articles). Those crawlers are what attracts people to our sites, to read, to make donations, to possibly edit. Of course there are lesser crawlers, but they're not really big players. I'm at a loss to understand why the Wikimedia Foundation should take on the costs and indemnities associated with hiring staff to create a for-pay API that would have to meet the expectations of a customer (or more than one customer) that hasn't even agreed to pay for access. If they want a specialized API (and we've been given no evidence that they do), let THEM hire the staff, pay them, write the code in an appropriately open-source way, and donate it to the WMF with the understanding that it could be modified as required, and that it will be accessible to everyone. It is good that the WMF has studied the usage patterns. Could a link be given to the report, please? It's public, correct? This is exactly the point of transparency. If only the WMF has the information, then it gives an excuse for the community's comments to be ignored "because they don't know the facts". So let's lay out all the facts on the table, please. Risker/Anne On 16 January 2016 at 15:06, Vituzzu &lt;vituzzu.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: one have. in internet started lot. Yet and from people content to we decline will squarely into fund (a The osamadre(a)hotmail.com one An share in https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, , _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

In cases of excessive resource usage we have several options. Contact the source, throttle them, or flat out disable access depending on what each case calls for. I have seen the dev team to this liberally in the past when needed. If any one person or group is exploiting us by using unproportionate amounts of resources thats one thing, if we are just trying to make money by selling access to what we already have thats another. Limiting abusive sources shouldnt be an issue, but as soon as we start selling access we loose sight of our mission. On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Denny Vrandecic &lt;dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org wrote: with > most what Andreas Kolbe said on this thread. > To give a bit more thoughts: I am not terribly worried about current > crawlers. But currently, and more in the future, I expect us to provide > more complex and this expensive APIs: a SPARQL endpoint, parsing APIs, etc. say, lot whose > mission might or might not be aligned with our. > Is monetizing such use cases really entirely unthinkable? Even under > restrictions like the ones suggested by Andreas, or other such restrictions > we should discuss? > On Jan 16, 2016 3:49 PM, "Risker" &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > Hmm. The majority of those crawlers are from search engines - the very > > search engines that keep us in the top 10 of their results (and often in the to > > read, to make donations, to possibly edit. Of course there are lesser > > crawlers, but they're not really big players. > > > I'm at a loss to understand why the Wikimedia Foundation should take on > the > > costs and indemnities associated with hiring staff to create a for-pay > API > > that would have to meet the expectations of a customer (or more than one THEM open-source > > way, and donate it to the WMF with the understanding that it could be > > modified as required, and that it will be accessible to everyone. > > > It is good that the WMF has studied the usage patterns. Could a link be the don't > > know the facts". So let's lay out all the facts on the table, please. > > > Risker/Anne > > > > > On 16 January 2016 at 15:06, Vituzzu &lt;vituzzu.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > > Thank you for sharing this but, above all, to focus on digging real > data. > > > > > IMHO we shouldn't forget our mission, so licenses must be as free as > > > possible. Turning into something "more closed" would definitely deplete we > > have. > > > > > Crawlers' owner should definitely share our increasing expenses but any > > > kind of agreement with them should include ways to improve our > userbase. > > > I'm wondering about an agreement with Google (or any other player) to > add > > > an "edit" button to knowledge graph. Sort of a "knowledge vs. users" > > > agreement. > > > > > So, we definitely need a long term strategy which the Foundation will > > > pursue in *negotiating* with anyone who wants a big scale access to > *our > > > resources* (while access to our knowledge will have no limits, as > usual). > > > > > Vito > > > > > > > Il 16/01/2016 19:21, Lila Tretikov ha scritto: > > > > >> To share some context of the discussion the board had around this -- I visitors knowledge. simplifies readers nothing costs to year. > > The > > >> conversation next week is a good start to prioritize those. Please > join > > >> it. > > >> > > >> Lila > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter < > > osamadre(a)hotmail.com > > >> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> If we are concerned about Google taking unfair advantage of Wikipedia, use. lacking the fundraising, keeping growth potential ?subject=unsubscribe> ?subject=unsubscribe> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Charging Google for computing power is a Quixotic business model. For comparison, Google's own approach to this same problem, when the N$A wants to run so many ongoing searches that it would vaporize a little section of the Columbia River, is to lease a search appliance cluster to the agencies in question.[1] We could easily take the same approach, providing a near-realtime feed of dumps and a basic appliance which can render pages and provide API endpoints. If the reduced bandwidth needs and better control over the process isn't enough to incentivize our biggest customers, we could give them extra encouragement by throttling direct access to our services. Breaking even would be a nice target either way, it seems like any "monetization" of access is at best just a charitable subsidy in disguise, and not a long-term win. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Search_Appliance https://support.google.com/earthenterprise/?hl=en#topic=2802998 Speculation on why GEE was recently deprecated, lessons we might learn: http://geospatialworld.net/Professional/ViewBlog.aspx?id=415 Adam Wight mw:user:adamw On Jan 16, 2016 6:12 PM, "Denny Vrandecic" &lt;dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: with etc. say, lot whose restrictions in the to one THEM open-source be the don't deplete we any -- I visitors knowledge. simplifies readers nothing costs to year. Wikipedia, use. lacking the fundraising, keeping growth potential ?subject=unsubscribe> ?subject=unsubscribe> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

To give a bit more thoughts: I am not terribly worried about current crawlers. But currently, and more in the future, I expect us to provide more complex and this expensive APIs: a SPARQL endpoint, parsing APIs, etc. These will be simply expensive to operate. Not for infrequent users - say, to the benefit of us 70,000 editors - but for use cases that involve tens or millions of requests per day. These have the potential of burning a lot of funds to basically support the operations of commercial companies whose mission might or might not be aligned with our.

Nor am I concerned that our information might be used by people who oppose our principles. We ask just the same of our contributors--that the information they contribute may be used for ''any'' purpose.

Le lun. 18 janv. 2016 à 3:17, Andrea Zanni &lt;zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit : CC-BY-SA allows everyone (including big companies) to modify (for instance, to enrich) and not share-alike AS LONG AS their extended work is kept private. That means Facebook pages and Google infoboxes based on CC-BY-SA content ought to carry the CC-BY-SA license too, because they are distributed to an audience wider than the changes' copyright owners (usually the companies themselves).

Hmm. The majority of those crawlers are from search engines - the very search engines that keep us in the top 10 of their results (and often in the top 3), thus leading to the usage and donations that we need to survive. If they have to pay, then they might prefer to change their algorithm, or reduce the frequency of scraping (thus also failing to catch updates to articles including removal of vandalism in the lead paragraphs, which is historically one of the key reasons for frequently crawling the same articles). Those crawlers are what attracts people to our sites, to read, to make donations, to possibly edit. Of course there are lesser crawlers, but they're not really big players.

I'm at a loss to understand why the Wikimedia Foundation should take on the costs and indemnities associated with hiring staff to create a for-pay API that would have to meet the expectations of a customer (or more than one customer) that hasn't even agreed to pay for access. If they want a specialized API (and we've been given no evidence that they do), let THEM hire the staff, pay them, write the code in an appropriately open-source way, and donate it to the WMF with the understanding that it could be modified as required, and that it will be accessible to everyone.

It is good that the WMF has studied the usage patterns. Could a link be given to the report, please? It's public, correct? This is exactly the point of transparency. If only the WMF has the information, then it gives an excuse for the community's comments to be ignored "because they don't know the facts". So let's lay out all the facts on the table, please.

To give a bit more thoughts: I am not terribly worried about current crawlers. But currently, and more in the future, I expect us to provide more complex and this expensive APIs: a SPARQL endpoint, parsing APIs, etc. These will be simply expensive to operate. Not for infrequent users - say, to the benefit of us 70,000 editors - but for use cases that involve tens or millions of requests per day. These have the potential of burning a lot of funds to basically support the operations of commercial companies whose mission might or might not be aligned with our.