On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: ​Brian, I'd be interested to hear how volunteers could be cultivated and supported. We felt under attack by the Foundation until Lila arrived, and I think a lot of editors are grateful to her for having improved that relationship. But not feeling attacked isn't the same as feeling supported. The Foundation often boasts that it only has around 200 employees, but the truth is that it has an enormous unpaid workforce. Most of us don't go to meet-ups, so we don't even see travel expenses. We're grateful if we can get a free JSTOR subscription. Sue Gardner once declared that the Foundation would never pay for content, which was a blow to those of us who produce it. Unpaid workers with technical skills might one day be paid, but if your skills are editorial, forget it. That very much supports the idea that the Foundation is a tech organization and not an educational one. So – how does a tech organization nurture and support its unpaid workforce of mostly writers and researchers? Sarah ​

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: ​The crux of the problem is that we all see ourselves as bosses. ​The paid workers don't want to be told what to do by the unpaid, and vice versa. There were clashes around the introduction of software, but these were only flashpoints. There was (and remains) a simmering resentment of the paid among the unpaid, for obvious reasons. And the paid staff seemed to regard experienced editors as "power users" who need to be chased off, missing the point that (a) "power users" have invaluable experience and a very unusual skill set that should be used not discarded, and (b) that the new users the Foundation wants to cultivate will become "power users" too one day if they're cultivated well – unless the idea is to appeal only to occasional users who want to fix typos, but you won't get an encyclopaedia that way. You mentioned the "exploitation of employees and users for their labor " in your email, and I'm glad you did, because that's almost never discussed. It was in part why there was such a strong reaction to the misunderstanding about the Knowledge Engine. We had visions of the Foundation trying to create yet another unpaid workforce to "curate" search results. I don't want this email to be essay-length, but let me raise an issue that's closely related to exploitation, namely addiction. A lot of the unpaid workers are addicted to what they do, and I've seen staffers discuss how to keep them that way (e.g. by creating feedback loops of responses to keep people going). Should the Foundation be paying for that kind of work and thinking in those ways? I would say not. ​ So the question of how to support volunteers involves: 1. Recognizing that we are an unpaid workforce. 2. Recognizing that there are questions about exploitation and addiction that should be discussed, and that these are serious ethical and perhaps even public-health issues. 3. Developing an attitude of social responsibility toward us within the Foundation, rather than seeing us as a nuisance and an obstacle. 4. Rethinking Sue's decision that the Foundation would never pay for content. I can think of several ways in which the Foundation could either pay or facilitate payment. I'll leave it there, because this is long, and perhaps reply to your other points in another email. Just one final thought. When I lived in London years ago, a new newspaper started for homeless people, The Big Issue. It is sold by the homeless on the streets, with the idea of giving them a way to earn an income. The homeless and other volunteers also used to help write it. The idea was that, as it became more successful, everyone would be paid, because the concept of it was to lift everyone up. I would love to see the Wikimedia Foundation embrace that philosophy, namely that part of its job is to nurture its workforce (paid and unpaid), offer them opportunity where it can, lift them up, educate them, show them how to educate others, and respect them, so that everyone who gets involved seriously with Wikipedia finds their lives improved because of that involvement. Sarah

Sarah, thank you and Brion for some really insightful e-mails. I'll just add one thought to one of your points. On 24 February 2016 at 00:41, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] 4. Rethinking Sue's decision that the Foundation would never pay for content. I can think of several ways in which the Foundation could either > pay or facilitate payment. Well, we all know about the problems of giving monetary compensation to editors. Just thinking aloud here, but I guess if you want to reward editors in some way, but don't want to pay them directly, there's some middle ground: Don't pay them, but let them donate their share of the cake. At the beginning of the year, the WMF would set a budget, add some buffer, and all that is received on top of that goes to a charity pool which "belongs" to the editors. However, they can't claim any of the money for themselves, but instead can choose how much they'd like to give to charity A, charity B, etc. So, for instance, I'm a fan of the work of UNICEF and a lesser-known charity called Evidence Action. So "my" compensation for my Wikipedia work would be an amount X that I prorate between these two organizations. Other editors would also take part in this scheme. That would ensure we have a fully-funded (but not over-funded) WMF, we've all done something good for the world, readers have a way to show appreciation for editors, we don't negatively affect the intrinsic motivation of editors by giving them money, all while transaction costs are low as there'd just be one cumulative transfer per organization. Economically speaking, I also think it's quite efficient: The WMF has a great shiny product to showcase: Wikipedia. Wikipedia is something that lots of people use, and benefit from, so it's rather easy to get them to donate. On the other hand, if a more "classical" charity spends money on installing water dispensers in Malawi, that goes unnoticed by most people. So you'd expect that redirecting money to other charities should also increase the total amout of donations made. Aside from that, the marginal utility of the 50,000,001st dollar received the WMF is probably pretty low, whereas if you're in the business of installing water dispensers, one would expect it to be pretty high. Best, Patrik

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:20 PM, pajz <pajzmail(a)gmail.com> wrote: And here I thought you were going to suggest giving each editor a pool of $$ to assign to their favorite skunkworks projects. If we divide the current WMF budget ($58M) by the current number of monthly active editors (71K), then take 60% off the top for keeping the lights on, infrastructure, etc. -- this is a fairly typical overhead percentage for grants at universities -- we're still left with $325/editor. Personally, I'd vote my funds for edit-a-thons in a box :) Phoebe, causing trouble p.s. this is a thought experiment. I think the logistics would be unwieldy. But not so unwieldy that the the highly-praised community tech punchlist couldn't be implemented in many other areas too.

Well, Sarah, after all of these years I didn't think you'd come up with anything that would surprise me. I was wrong, And I'll say that if I was going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying qualified translators to support smaller projects, and Wikisourcers, and people who may have the interest and ability to edit but instead have to work 60 and 70 hour weeks on susbsistence wages simply to feed their children. I On 24 February 2016 at 21:09, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'm very new to this concept of paid editing. But from what I understood paid editing is allowed, as long as the editors disclose who they are paid by on their talk page or in edit summaries. I understood this to be roughly the idea of the Wikipedian in Residence title. I didn't look this up on purpose, because I wanted to point out this might be a common existing understanding. Am I mistaken? What is the policy? As I was thinking about this, if it's true, I figured the hardest part for the community would be finding out which edit was sponsored and which was not. If the disclosure was just on the user's page, someone looking at edit histories would have to click through a lot to find possible affiliations. I'd say we could easily create an "audit" mode to the edit history that would decorate each revision based on any affiliation templates from the user pages. But, there I go inventing a feature for a problem I don't even know exists : ) I'll just go look it up now. On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: That's not exactly true. All Wikimedia projects are beholden to the Terms of Use (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use) which was recently amended to add: *Paid contributions without disclosure* Many wikis do not have policies that supersede this requirement, and so are subject to it. That said, the ToU does not specify precisely what happens when someone is found to be in violation of this rule, which I know we struggle with on the English Wikipedia. – Molly (GorillaWarfare)

Yeah, so, my ultimate point remains: we're talking about hundreds of Wikimedia projects and how they interact with paid editors, and not just how a few handle it. LIke everything, it's complicated beyond local instances ;) -- ~Keegan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru> wrote: - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles. Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded as okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about the institution that employs them. But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems because of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor being more persistent). Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that want articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my thinking was that it would be better than the current situation. Sarah​

I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying them cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay, food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs work, like workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Would it be an acceptable compromise? Regards, Micru On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman <dggenwp(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non

A Wikimedia monastery! ^_^ Sent from my iPhone

Actually I went last year to a winter retreat in Plum Village, a mindfulness monastery in southern France, and the focus was cultivating civility (loving-kindness they call it) and inner peace. I thought, well, if besides of that one could contribute free knowledge here I would join right away :) I wonder if I would be the only one :P Cheers, Micru On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote: -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non

We could help them by making Wikipedia pages about registration agencies, European immigration laws, and/or uploading sample forms that they could translate into their own languages. On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com > Hoi, > If we want to make a difference, a real difference, we enable refugees in > refugee camps to edit Wikipedia. They have nothing to do, they are often > well educated. It is wonderful when they can because it not only gives them > something to do, it gives them a sense of self-worth and this prevents the > onset of a lot of mental health issues. > > Obviously this is not easy but we do not pay them directly but still make a > real difference. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 26 February 2016 at 09:39, David Cuenca Tudela &lt;dacuetu(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying > them > > cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay, > > food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs work, like > > workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it. > > > > Would it be an acceptable compromise? > > > > Regards, > > Micru > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman &lt;dggenwp(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > > > Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt the Foundation > > > altogether. It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency. > > We're > > > supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting > > itself > > > be used as a medium for advertising. It at least hopes to achieve this > > by > > > while not being evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise. > > > > > > Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people > > > freely give us more than enough for our needs, and can therefore hope > > to > > > achieve the positive good of providing objective information on > > > encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not information > that > > > other organizations want people to read. We have no need to > compromise. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV &lt;sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter < > > putevod(a)mccme.ru&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles. > > > > > - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates > > with > > > > > WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they > were > > > > paid > > > > > arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give > up, > > > > and I > > > > > was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also > > had > > > > very > > > > > unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose > > only > > > > goal > > > > > was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality, > > > > > efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if > somebody > > > > > defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the > > quality > > > > > loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who > is > > > paid > > > > > (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and > have > > to > > > > do > > > > > the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more > > persistent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English > > > > Wikipedia. > > > > Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded > as > > > > okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about > the > > > > institution that employs them. > > > > > > > > But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems > > > because > > > > of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor > > > being > > > > more persistent). > > > > > > > > Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that > want > > > > articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the > > > > problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my > > > thinking > > > > was that it would be better than the current situation. > > > > > > > > Sarah​ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > David Goodman > > > > > > DGG at the enWP > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Etiamsi omnes, ego non > > _______________________________________________ > > 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>

Regarding the Wikimedia Foundation paying editors, brokering paid editing to displace the role of PR agencies, etc.: Since 2009, my full time work has centered on this area, in providing solid advice to companies and other organizations on how to engage ethically and effectively with Wikipedia. There is one central point that drives my work: an ethic of transparency and non-pushy transparency is the main thing that will lead companies toward engaging in ways that support Wikipedia's goals. As for the identity and background of editors, their level of experience with Wikipedia, and who does or does not pay them -- these things are all important, but they are secondary to the way they approach their work, and whether/how they express respect toward other Wikipedia editors on an ongoing basis. One aspect: working as a Wikipedian in Residence is no different, in structure, from working for a PR company. I believe the Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence proves this point decisively;[1] simply having a certain kind of title or affiliation is no guarantee that one's efforts will be compatible with Wikipedia's values, policies, guidelines, or cultural norms. On the other hand, my clients routinely exhibit good behavior, and get good results. Unfortunately I'm not able to disclose my connection with my clients (who I merely advise -- I don't take any action on their behalf, either on wiki or by reaching out to editors in private), but I can disclose a few projects. The most recent case is the film The Hunting Ground, where the immediate reaction of Wikipedians (including, influentially, Jimmy Wales) was knee-jerk negative, but upon more careful investigation Wikipedians identified no substantial problems in how my client conducted himself. Wikipedians -- myself very much included -- are not perfect. Making clear, meaningful disclosure of one's role, and behaving in ways that reflect a genuine respect for the Wikipedia community, are the key. I have seen many instances of, as Sarah suggests, a paid editor being "more persistent" than Wikipedia volunteers, and using that as a significant tactical advantage. I abhor that practice, and guide my clients explicitly in avoiding that kind of thing. It's in my clients' interest to avoid doing that -- not just in Wikipedia's interest. My clients are typically interested in good long-term results, and they do not want to be saddled with a poor reputation among Wikipedians. It takes some explaining to help them see how that plays out in practice -- but that's what they pay me for. I routinely explain to them how winning a short-term victory through persistence may have negative long-term impacts, because months or years down the road it might result in their article getting deleted or massively changed, or worse, it might land them negative news coverage. They are generally persuaded by this argument. I don't think the WMF should pay existing Wikipedians to write or edit articles, or get involved in identifying which Wikipedians are "better" than others. I have seen very good Wikipedians make errors in judgment; I have made errors in judgment myself. I believe a practice of meaningful transparency is the best approach, because it creates a layer of accountability, where it's possible for others to notice and address errors in judgment. However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't need to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't; the WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting involved in paid editing. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] Included for transparency: Founder/Principal of Wiki Strategies wikistrategies.net On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:49 PM, David Goodman &lt;dggenwp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth &lt;peteforsyth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I didn't intend to start a detailed discussion about paid editing in this thread. I mentioned it only as one of the ways in which the Foundation could help unpaid editors. To address a few issues: the point of suggesting the Foundation as a neutral broker is to remove the paid editor's COI. The editor would have no relationship with the people wanting the article, and would not be chosen by them. The brief from the Foundation would be to produce a well-written, reasonably comprehensive, neutral article about X, based on the best sources available. (Someone referred to this as advertising. It would be exactly the opposite.) It needn't be the Foundation that organizes this. A third party might work, but the danger of a private company doing it is that they would rely on it for profit, and therefore would be sensitive to pressure from companies. The idea of the Foundation as broker is that it would always place the core policies above the desires of the client. Foundation involvement struck me as the only way for an editor to be paid for an article without having a COI. I believe someone else suggested in this thread that it could be run the way the Education Program is, as a related but separate body. That would be something you would be perfectly placed to lead, Pete, given your experience as consultant, editor, and former Foundation employee. Sarah

I loved the healthcare idea, sounded like such a positive thing. Until I thought about implementation details. Inevitably, there would have to be some connection to how active the editor was, otherwise we would have to get healthcare for millions of users. So then, even worse, if someone fell under the active threshold, I assume health care would be taken away... So then we'd probably have to deal with awful situations like "Wikipedia cuts health benefits for editor unable to edit due to health problems". I don't like poking my head into these dark hypotheticals, but I wanted to share that the situation is more complicated than at least I thought. On Friday, February 26, 2016, Florence Devouard &lt;fdevouard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Florence, can you explain to me the actual risk the foundation would be exposed to if ir got involved in editorial decisions, please? Perhaps some hypothetical examples would help. Anthony Cole On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Florence Devouard &lt;fdevouard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Florence Devouard &lt;fdevouard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: years that I have no idea what the implications would be. Moving away from the very complex issue of paid editing, Brion opened the thread with different views of what a high-tech organization is, one of which involves lack of diversity, overemphasis on engineering, and exploitation of staff and users at the cost of their physical and emotional health. He argued that the WMF should instead cultivate and support staff and volunteers. So what can we do to move the WMF away from the bad aspects of high-tech organizations and toward a position where the health of the paid and unpaid workforces is actively nurtured? I've made a small start by suggesting software [1] that asks editors how long they want to spend on the site when they log in, along with options to be logged out automatically and not logged in again for a set time (following a suggestion from a former Google engineer in the *New York Review of Books*). [2] I would love to see the WMF agree never again to discuss trapping editors in feedback loops intended to keep them editing, but instead to help them plan and monitor their interactions with Wikimedia sites. Another idea is for opt-in software that asks how you're feeling every few hours – "Are you feeling angry? Is it time for a break?" – or when you log out: "How did your interactions today make you feel?" Questions could be asked that would be useful to the WMF in its gender-gap, anti-harassment and other initiatives (once the data is anonymized). These are examples of how WMF engineers could show that the WMF is committed to being an ethical high-tech organization. Sarah [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tech&oldid=15386522#Request [2] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/02/25/we-are-hopelessly-hooked/

Another thread thats digressed from its original question but right through the discussion not one person raised the concept that that the WMF is a charity (An organization, the objective of which is to carry out a charitable purpose) our purpose is to share the sum of all knowledge, think about that for one minute Nothing in that defines the WMF purpose as being a high-tech corporation, we use technology to share knowledge but technology is one of our tools not our purpose, we could inefficiently achieve our purpose by printing on paper and delivering a copy to every person along with regular updates. We can redefine the purpose of the WMF to; *providing the technology to share the sum of all knowledge* I doubt that would get the same level of donations that are currently being received, but it would release the WMF from the need to support things like Wikimania, WMCONF, local communities and those pesky volunteers who create content. It would also mean that the WMF wouldn't have to worry about issues every time a now gadget is rolled out the WMF could build all the gadgets it wanted regardless of whether they work or are implemented. ​We need to be building something an uneducated truck driver can use as readily as a professor can, technology is our tool not our purpose On 28 February 2016 at 06:21, Risker &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: --

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Gnangarra &lt;gnangarra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: <snip> This should be printed on a banner and hung on the wall every time the Board meets.

On 2016-02-28 16:10, Guettarda wrote: Actually, in the facebook discussion which was earlier referenced on this list someone noticed (unfortunately, without much impact) that WMF is not a business company and not a high-tech company, but more like a culture/ educational institution. A direct consequence would be that one should think again whether San Francisco is the best location for the WMF office, rather than a place better known for culture and education and less for proximity to Silicon Valley. Boston was named in the same discussion. Cheers Yaroslav

On 2016-02-28 16:24, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: The relocation does not have to happen overnight. It can easily take several years (which is likely longer than the average time a WMF employee spends in the organization). But I think discussing this as a strategical direction would be beneficial for the movement. The topic was raised several times in the past, and I did not get the impression that there was any willingness to discuss it from the Board / WMF. (I might be wrong though, and pointing out to such discussions will be appreciated). Cheers Yaroslav

Le 27/02/16 22:41, SarahSV a écrit : I had written a LONG email to tell the story of how "Wiki Loves Women" ended up NOT funded by Wikimedia Foundation (it is entirely funded and supported by partner Goethe Institute). But in the end... I thought the whole story would bore people here. So let me toss two ideas 1) It would be nice that it be possible to ask for grants from WMF that would not fall in either of the 4 options, currently - annual plan grants (for big official affiliates) - PEG (for groups and individuals) - individual grants - travel grants PEG is capped (roughly around 30.000 dollars apparently). So between PEG and affiliates... there is a big void. 2) It would be nice that WMF set up a system where it is officially supporting a project, even though it is not funding it with REAL cash (= it is easier to look for other funding organizations when WMF has already put a sort of "yeah great project" stamp on it.) Florence

Jimmy, I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial re-users, and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the community. There should be a dedicated space where such information is collected and available to the public. Major developments should be announced on the Wikimedia blog. If some engineering team does work *specifically* for Amazon Kindle, Amazon Echo, Google Play, Siri etc., then in my view the companies concerned should pay for that work, or the work should be left to a for-profit contractor. It should not be paid for by donors. Donors do not give money to the Foundation so it can flood the knowledge market with a free product that a handful of companies then earn billions from. As for API use, if there are *generic* APIs that multiple commercial re-users can benefit from, then they should be charged according to their usage, with small users operating below a certain threshold being exempt from payment. Lastly, we should not seek world domination. :) It's unhealthy, especially in the world of information and knowledge. Prices should be high enough that some competition is possible. Andreas On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Jimmy Wales &lt;jimmywales(a)ymail.com&gt; wrote:

On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: What non-hypothetical work are you referring to? {{cn}} -- brion

If statements are hard to answer in real life. I don't think this issue is as black-and-white as you paint it to be. The question is about impact for your bucks. If it requires a relatively small investment from WMF for Wikimedia content to be spread among more people, to reach a wider audience, and if that cost somehow prohibits those commercial players to do it in an open way or with other hurdles that hinder further distribution - why not! Why donors give money, is pure speculation. We only know one thing: we can only spend it on our mission. So lets do that. Lets not exclude whole ranges of issues based on some vague qualification that may or may not have foundation in reality. If there is a specific example that is terrible and you'd like to bring up, then do so. Lodewijk On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Brion Vibber &lt;bvibber(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: Brion, You tell me. :) For what it's worth, Jimmy Wales has said in this thread today, ---o0o--- On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help commercial re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board discussions about this topic. ---o0o--- So this clearly has come up. What originally triggered my curiosity was this: I noticed a couple of weeks ago that the Kindle offered a Wikipedia look-up function. I couldn't recall -- and cannot find -- any corresponding WMF announcement. So, how did this happen? The only thing I did find, as I was looking for a WMF announcement, was a mention in an Engineering Report, which mentioned, in passing, a WMF team doing work on this: ---o0o--- "In side project work, the team spent time on API continuation queries, Android IP editing notices, Amazon Kindle and other non-Google Play distribution, and Google Play reviews (now that the Android launch dust has settled, mobile apps product management will be triaging the reviews)." https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Report/2014/July ---o0o--- Google Play certainly contains a lot of Wikipedia content, and it's a commercial service. I also recently was pointed to this 2008 email from Sue Gardner, released as a court exhibit in the same antitrust case Arnnon Geshuri was involved in. Sue said, in part: ---o0o--- I think Google and Wikipedia can and should have a complementary and positive relationship. And I gather Larry and Sergey feel the same: I believe they've told Jimmy that Google has no ill will towards Wikipedia, and that they'd be willing to make a donation to us in order to signal that publicly. I also believe that any real or perceived tensions in the Google/Wikipedia relationship may be being exacerbated at some levels inside Google by their unfulfilled desires to do business with us. Since relocating to the Bay Area in January, we've had plenty of Google folks reach out to us. But - we have a total staff of 21 people, with just one person responsible for business development, so I am not sure we are even able to politely keep up with their pitches. IMO, rather than spending our time on multiple product-specific pitches, it would probably be more productive for Wikipedia and Google to develop a single umbrella relationship/agreement (obviously within the limits of Wikipedia's non-commercial context). So. I think a good next step would be some kind of high-level meeting between Wikipedia and Google, to talk through these issues and see if a donation and/or business deal makes sense. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/sandberg.pdf ---o0o--- I don't recall any such business deal or umbrella agreement ever having been announced publicly. So, what happened, and has it impacted in any way what people at WMF have been working on since? I believe that if the WMF does enter into business agreements with companies like Google or Amazon, or does work designed to enhance their product, then the community and the donating public should be told. I'm sure you appreciate that it's very hard for me as a non-staff member to gauge what's going on, but there were enough breadcrumbs here for me to feel it was worth asking the question. Does that help? Andreas

If a tech task is relatively cheap and will expand the spread of free knowledge then no one would object to you spending a little bit of donor mony, I'm sure. But don't you see a point where it becomes sensible to expect the for-profit/s who are expanding their profits thanks to such work to pay for such work? Especially when we have a limited budget, and volunteers' requests for you to help them make and present knowledge are routinely turned down? On Monday, 29 February 2016, Lodewijk &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org&gt; wrote: -- Anthony Cole

If that's the limit of your bespoke work for for-profits, I see no problem. I'm curious about Andreas's other point. Does the WMF have any formal or informal agreements with for-profits that aren't yet on the public record? I realise this is probably a question for the board or chiefs. On Monday, 29 February 2016, Dan Garry &lt;dgarry(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: -- Anthony Cole

Hi, in my opinion there is no need to differentiate and to clarify what "high-tech" means. The real problem is to define the KPIs (key performance indicators) and a balanced relation of those indicators. A corporation can be a high-tech corporation and take care of the comfort of all stakeholders without problems, the big deal is to find this balanced relation. Kind regards On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Brion Vibber &lt;bvibber(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario> Skype: valdelli Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch

The KPIS is not only quantitave measures. For instance an anonymous survey may measure the level of satisfaction of people and it's more qualitative. The simplicity of KPIS is to agree (all parties) about the indicators and to cut off discussions about success/insuccess. Something can be a success for someone an insuccess for another one. They are indicators and not only measures. Kind regards Il 29/Feb/2016 14:58, "Brion Vibber" &lt;bvibber(a)wikimedia.org&gt; ha scritto: