Who runs the Wikimedia Shop ?

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

WikiProject Accuracy

Internship opening: product...

Florence Devouard

21 Mar 2016 21 Mar '16

11:47 a.m.

Show replies by date

Joseph Seddon

21 Mar 21 Mar

12:28 p.m.

Hey Florence, Regarding your first question the shop is Foundation owned and run but hosted by Shopify, an e-commerce provider. [1] The orders are then sent to our fulfillment partner, SWAGBOT. [2] We have a staff contractor, Gretchen Holtman, who runs the shop for the Wikimedia Foundation. [3] The email address is responded to by Wikimedia Foundation staff typically either Gretchen for regarding issues surrounding the Wikimedia Shop, or myself in relation to the merchandise giveaway scheme. [4] Feel free to contact me off list if there is anything I can help you with. Seddon [1] https://www.shopify.co.uk/ [2] https://store.wikimedia.org/pages/our-fulfillment-company [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors#Fundraising_Oper… [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Florence Devouard <fdevouard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Is that directly run by Wikimedia Foundation staff or is that run by an independant company "paid" by WMF to manage the shop ? Who is behind the email address merchandise(a)wikimedia.org ? Thank you Florence _______________________________________________ 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>

-- Seddon *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation*

Florence Devouard

1:40 p.m.

Thank you I sent you a private email. Flo Le 21/03/16 11:28, Joseph Seddon a écrit :

...

Ricordisamoa

2:03 p.m.

As in [1] I'd like to know whether the use of Shopify is acceptable for a FOSS-friendly organization. Thanks in advance. [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_merchandise#Shopify.3F Il 21/03/2016 11:28, Joseph Seddon ha scritto:

...

Marc A. Pelletier

2:14 p.m.

On 2016-03-21 8:03 AM, Ricordisamoa wrote:

...

As in [1] I'd like to know whether the use of Shopify is acceptable for a FOSS-friendly organization. Thanks in advance.

While Shopify isn't FLOSS-only, they're a fairly okay place that does contribute to FLOSS themselves (mostly in the Ruby and Go worlds, that intersect very little with our own tech). I don't think it's reasonable to expect that every external supplier is all-FLOSS. For one, the movement would be pretty much stuck without hardware, networking gear, and power at the very least. Not every service/provider even *have* pure-FLOSS alternative - let alone good or even adequate ones. -- Coren / Marc

Ricordisamoa

2:34 p.m.

Il 21/03/2016 13:14, Marc A. Pelletier ha scritto:

...

On 2016-03-21 8:03 AM, Ricordisamoa wrote:

As in [1] I'd like to know whether the use of Shopify is acceptable for a FOSS-friendly organization. Thanks in advance.

My concern was about the (likely proprietary) JavaScript that is run on the customers' devices, but it turns out that it isn't actually required to browse and purchase? And yes, it'd be nice if the server side was under WMF's control too!

Marc A. Pelletier

2:47 p.m.

On 2016-03-21 8:34 AM, Ricordisamoa wrote:

...

And yes, it'd be nice if the server side was under WMF's control too!

Yes, and no. The extra control is hypothetically nice, but in practice one-off services that are different from the rest of the infrastructure (as a shop would be, like the blog, OTRS, etc) tend to be *extremely* expensive and difficult to care for, and tend to be the very weakest points of the system (including privacy and security). There's a question of lack of specific expertise, of multiplication of moving parts, and of limited brain share to spread around a limited operations team. I think it's wiser and safer to contract those out to a provider that (a) manages this as their core business and (b) is responsible for maintenance and security. (The blog is a very good example of how much improvement can come as a result of delegating to a provider that actually has the expertise and resources to run the service). There are cases - because of our privacy policy or because of how closely things tie into the rest of our infrastructure - where bringing in a one-off service is the best thing to do; but even those cases tend to be inordinately resource-heavy for their relative size so are best avoided when possible. -- Coren / Marc

K. Peachey

22 Mar 22 Mar

3:57 a.m.

On 21 March 2016 at 22:47, Marc A. Pelletier <marc(a)uberbox.org> wrote:

...

The extra control is hypothetically nice, but in practice one-off services that are different from the rest of the infrastructure (as a shop would be, like the blog, OTRS, etc) tend to be *extremely* expensive and difficult to care for, and tend to be the very weakest points of the system (including privacy and security). Those are only limited by the choice of the foundation.

If they wanted someone with OTRS/wordpress/cisco ios/SmartTeam/etc skills, they would hire appropriately so the operations team was equipped with the staff and skills needed. It's like running a shop without a retail manager, It could work, but would work a lot better if it was staffed with people with the appropriate skillsets.

James Alexander

6:09 a.m.

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:57 PM, K. Peachey <p858snake(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 21 March 2016 at 22:47, Marc A. Pelletier <marc(a)uberbox.org> wrote:

The extra control is hypothetically nice, but in practice one-off

services

that are different from the rest of the infrastructure (as a shop would

be,

like the blog, OTRS, etc) tend to be *extremely* expensive and difficult

care for, and tend to be the very weakest points of the system (including privacy and security). Those are only limited by the choice of the foundation.

Totally but it's all a balancing act even if you assume we have the resources. To do this correctly you'd need at least one person on the tech side who understand the platform and payments, preferably a couple who could back them up if need be and who can support different parts/make sure they're secure/code reviewed/updated etc + the folks on the front end (the 'shop manager(s)' organizing the actual design/fulfillment/etc). The more you add the more you need to be making to justify it and as someone who did this math a fair bit when I was first setting up the shop we'd need quite a bit more in terms of orders before we were making enough to cover something in house and that was being relatively conservative in costing assuming we would only have to pay for 30-40% of some people etc. It also gets to the "trade off" question. That is obviously a discussion that is more open and so I won't pretend to have the right answer but I think at our current budget basically every new hire/project basically has to have a trade off the hire that won't be backfilled or the project that is canceled etc. I imagine we all can think of projects that we think are more or less important but we don't necessarily think of the 'same' projects which makes that trade off discussion difficult (but important since we can't just continue to expand the budget forever). James Alexander Manager Trust & Safety Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

John Mark Vandenberg

21 Mar 21 Mar

3:49 p.m.

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa(a)openmailbox.org> wrote:

...

Il 21/03/2016 13:14, Marc A. Pelletier ha scritto:

On 2016-03-21 8:03 AM, Ricordisamoa wrote:

As in [1] I'd like to know whether the use of Shopify is acceptable for a FOSS-friendly organization. Thanks in advance.

My concern was about the (likely proprietary) JavaScript that is run on the customers' devices, but it turns out that it isn't actually required to browse and purchase?

I very quickly looked, and it appears to be mostly open libraries and Shopify specific code for making purchases. However any amount of tracking could be hidden somewhere in their JavaScript, and an audit today doesnt mean it is safe to use tomorrow, as the source code is not publicly reviewed before being deployed.

...

And yes, it'd be nice if the server side was under WMF's control too!

Joseph Seddon

6:32 p.m.

In an ideal world then I would definitely be pushing for a fully wikimedia hosted online shop. I completely agree with the principles you've raised. But moving in-house would require resources for building and maintaining an ecommerce workflow that I don't think we collectively can justify. The setup and maintenance of any solution would require a degree of people power that I personally think could be spent better elsewhere in the movement as I am sure you would agree. Throwing together an e-commerce site can be easy. But doing it well, ensuring you are PCI compliant, ensuring its stable, secure etc. etc. and making it user friendly both front and back end. That takes time and money. Even if we did all that we would still in end up using a third party payment gateway. To ensure the shop is viable and not a drain we need to keep it as efficient as possible. As Marc said Shopify may not be completely FLOSS but many of the frameworks that Shopify use in their hosted service are on available on Github [1] and I would encourage you to take a look. With regards to the URL, I as a customer would find a top 10 website sending me to a third party URL for their shop highly suspicious and I certainly could treat it with suspicion. Making it clear that it is hosted by shopify I think would at least improve the situation. Regards Seddon On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa(a)openmailbox.org> wrote:

...

Il 21/03/2016 13:14, Marc A. Pelletier ha scritto: > > On 2016-03-21 8:03 AM, Ricordisamoa wrote: >> >> As in [1] I'd like to know whether the use of Shopify is acceptable for

...

>> FOSS-friendly organization. Thanks in advance. > > > While Shopify isn't FLOSS-only, they're a fairly okay place that does > contribute to FLOSS themselves (mostly in the Ruby and Go worlds, that > intersect very little with our own tech). > > I don't think it's reasonable to expect that every external supplier is > all-FLOSS. For one, the movement would be pretty much stuck without > hardware, networking gear, and power at the very least. Not every > service/provider even *have* pure-FLOSS alternative - let alone good or

even

...

adequate ones. -- Coren / Marc

My concern was about the (likely proprietary) JavaScript that is run on

the

...

customers' devices, but it turns out that it isn't actually required to browse and purchase?

...

And yes, it'd be nice if the server side was under WMF's control too!

IMO it is more important that any service on the "wikimedia.org" domain (and others owned by WMF) is free software. Outsourcing the service provision is fine, provided the software is free software and the delegated service provider abides by our terms of use and privacy policy. If we need to run non-free services, that isnt free software or can't comply with our terms of use and privacy policy, it should be hosted on a different domain, preferrably the domain of the service provider so that it is abundantly clear who the transaction is really with. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ 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>

rupert THURNER

6:41 p.m.

How many orders are handled by this shop? Rupert On Mar 21, 2016 17:32, "Joseph Seddon" <jseddon(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Il 21/03/2016 13:14, Marc A. Pelletier ha scritto: > > On 2016-03-21 8:03 AM, Ricordisamoa wrote: >> >> As in [1] I'd like to know whether the use of Shopify is acceptable for

even

adequate ones. -- Coren / Marc

My concern was about the (likely proprietary) JavaScript that is run on

the

customers' devices, but it turns out that it isn't actually required to browse and purchase?

And yes, it'd be nice if the server side was under WMF's control too!

Joseph Seddon

7:25 p.m.

I don't have numbers of orders to hand but revenue projections for the store can be seen on Slide 12 here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/WMF_Advancement_and_Fun… FY 15/16 Projections: Gross Revenue: $74,383.34 Net Revenue: $29,933.74 Regards Seddon On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:41 PM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

How many orders are handled by this shop? Rupert On Mar 21, 2016 17:32, "Joseph Seddon" <jseddon(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

In an ideal world then I would definitely be pushing for a fully

wikimedia

hosted online shop. I completely agree with the principles you've raised. But moving in-house would require resources for building and maintaining

ecommerce workflow that I don't think we collectively can justify. The setup and maintenance of any solution would require a degree of people power that I personally think could be spent better elsewhere in the movement as I am sure you would agree. Throwing together an e-commerce site can be easy. But doing it well, ensuring you are PCI compliant, ensuring its stable, secure etc. etc. and making it user friendly both front and back end. That takes time and

money.

Even if we did all that we would still in end up using a third party payment gateway. To ensure the shop is viable and not a drain we need to keep it as efficient as possible. As Marc said Shopify may not be completely FLOSS but many of the

frameworks

that Shopify use in their hosted service are on available on Github [1]

and

I would encourage you to take a look. With regards to the URL, I as a customer would find a top 10 website sending me to a third party URL for their shop highly suspicious and I certainly could treat it with suspicion. Making it clear that it is

hosted

by shopify I think would at least improve the situation. Regards Seddon On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa(a)openmailbox.org> wrote: > Il 21/03/2016 13:14, Marc A. Pelletier ha scritto: >> >> On 2016-03-21 8:03 AM, Ricordisamoa wrote: >>> >>> As in [1] I'd like to know whether the use of Shopify is acceptable

for

a >>> FOSS-friendly organization. Thanks in advance. >> >> >> While Shopify isn't FLOSS-only, they're a fairly okay place that does >> contribute to FLOSS themselves (mostly in the Ruby and Go worlds, that >> intersect very little with our own tech). >> >> I don't think it's reasonable to expect that every external supplier

>> all-FLOSS. For one, the movement would be pretty much stuck without >> hardware, networking gear, and power at the very least. Not every >> service/provider even *have* pure-FLOSS alternative - let alone good

even

adequate ones. -- Coren / Marc

My concern was about the (likely proprietary) JavaScript that is run on

the

customers' devices, but it turns out that it isn't actually required to browse and purchase?

And yes, it'd be nice if the server side was under WMF's control too!

_______________________________________________ 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>

-- Seddon *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation*

Steinsplitter Wiki

9:39 p.m.

Why do we need such a Shop? (I must admit that i tested the job a year ago, the product was fine, the shipment fast. A bit expensive for my taste.) I agree with other users that the shop schould be hosted on wikimedia servers. --Steinsplitter

...

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:41:46 +0100 From: rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who runs the Wikimedia Shop ? How many orders are handled by this shop? Rupert On Mar 21, 2016 17:32, "Joseph Seddon" <jseddon(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Il 21/03/2016 13:14, Marc A. Pelletier ha scritto: > > On 2016-03-21 8:03 AM, Ricordisamoa wrote: >> >> As in [1] I'd like to know whether the use of Shopify is acceptable for

even

adequate ones. -- Coren / Marc

My concern was about the (likely proprietary) JavaScript that is run on

the

customers' devices, but it turns out that it isn't actually required to browse and purchase?

And yes, it'd be nice if the server side was under WMF's control too!

Gerard Meijssen

9:43 p.m.

Hoi, Have you considered the cost? It is not free to run a shop. When another organisation can do it for you for less, it would be not good to have an own shop on principles only. Thanks, GerardM On 21 March 2016 at 20:39, Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-wiki(a)live.com> wrote:

...

wikimedia

> hosted online shop. I completely agree with the principles you've

raised.

> But moving in-house would require resources for building and

maintaining an

> ecommerce workflow that I don't think we collectively can justify. The > setup and maintenance of any solution would require a degree of people > power that I personally think could be spent better elsewhere in the > movement as I am sure you would agree. > > Throwing together an e-commerce site can be easy. But doing it well, > ensuring you are PCI compliant, ensuring its stable, secure etc. etc.

and

> making it user friendly both front and back end. That takes time and

money.

> Even if we did all that we would still in end up using a third party > payment gateway. To ensure the shop is viable and not a drain we need

> keep it as efficient as possible. > > As Marc said Shopify may not be completely FLOSS but many of the

frameworks

> that Shopify use in their hosted service are on available on Github

[1] and

> I would encourage you to take a look. > > With regards to the URL, I as a customer would find a top 10 website > sending me to a third party URL for their shop highly suspicious and I > certainly could treat it with suspicion. Making it clear that it is

hosted

> by shopify I think would at least improve the situation. > > Regards > > Seddon > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Ricordisamoa > <ricordisamoa(a)openmailbox.org> wrote: > > Il 21/03/2016 13:14, Marc A. Pelletier ha scritto: > >> > >> On 2016-03-21 8:03 AM, Ricordisamoa wrote: > >>> > >>> As in [1] I'd like to know whether the use of Shopify is

acceptable for

> a > >>> FOSS-friendly organization. Thanks in advance. > >> > >> > >> While Shopify isn't FLOSS-only, they're a fairly okay place that

does

> >> contribute to FLOSS themselves (mostly in the Ruby and Go worlds,

that

> >> intersect very little with our own tech). > >> > >> I don't think it's reasonable to expect that every external

supplier is

> >> all-FLOSS. For one, the movement would be pretty much stuck without > >> hardware, networking gear, and power at the very least. Not every > >> service/provider even *have* pure-FLOSS alternative - let alone

good or

> even > >> adequate ones. > >> > >> -- Coren / Marc > >> > > > > My concern was about the (likely proprietary) JavaScript that is run

> the > > customers' devices, but it turns out that it isn't actually required

browse and purchase?

And yes, it'd be nice if the server side was under WMF's control too!

_______________________________________________ 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>

Vi to

11:01 p.m.

Above all hosting a shop means: *production on demand: no "risks" but products become more expensive and slow to deliver *warehousing: means immobilizing a certain amount of money at the risk to accumulate unsold items. IMHO an internal shop would be justified by turnover at least 10 times greater than Joseph's estimate in following email. Vito 2016-03-21 20:43 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

wrote: > Why do we need such a Shop?

> (I must admit that i tested the job a year ago, the product was fine, the > shipment fast. A bit expensive for my taste.)

> I agree with other users that the shop schould be hosted on wikimedia > servers.

> --Steinsplitter

> > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:41:46 +0100 > > From: rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com > > To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who runs the Wikimedia Shop ? >

> > How many orders are handled by this shop? >

> > Rupert > > On Mar 21, 2016 17:32, "Joseph Seddon" <jseddon(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: >

> > > In an ideal world then I would definitely be pushing for a fully > wikimedia > > > hosted online shop. I completely agree with the principles you've > raised. > > > But moving in-house would require resources for building and > maintaining an > > > ecommerce workflow that I don't think we collectively can justify. The

> > setup and maintenance of any solution would require a degree of

people > > > power that I personally think could be spent better elsewhere in the > > > movement as I am sure you would agree. > >

> > > Throwing together an e-commerce site can be easy. But doing it well, > > > ensuring you are PCI compliant, ensuring its stable, secure etc. etc. > and > > > making it user friendly both front and back end. That takes time and > money. > > > Even if we did all that we would still in end up using a third party > > > payment gateway. To ensure the shop is viable and not a drain we need > to > > > keep it as efficient as possible. > >

> > > As Marc said Shopify may not be completely FLOSS but many of the > frameworks > > > that Shopify use in their hosted service are on available on Github > [1] and > > > I would encourage you to take a look. > >

> > > With regards to the URL, I as a customer would find a top 10 website > > > sending me to a third party URL for their shop highly suspicious and I > > > certainly could treat it with suspicion. Making it clear that it is > hosted > > > by shopify I think would at least improve the situation. > >

> > > Regards > >

> > > Seddon > >

> > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Ricordisamoa > > > <ricordisamoa(a)openmailbox.org> wrote: > > > > Il 21/03/2016 13:14, Marc A. Pelletier ha scritto: > > > >> > > > >> On 2016-03-21 8:03 AM, Ricordisamoa wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> As in [1] I'd like to know whether the use of Shopify is > acceptable for > > > a > > > >>> FOSS-friendly organization. Thanks in advance. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> While Shopify isn't FLOSS-only, they're a fairly okay place that > does > > > >> contribute to FLOSS themselves (mostly in the Ruby and Go worlds, > that > > > >> intersect very little with our own tech). > > > >> > > > >> I don't think it's reasonable to expect that every external > supplier is > > > >> all-FLOSS. For one, the movement would be pretty much stuck without > > > >> hardware, networking gear, and power at the very least. Not every > > > >> service/provider even *have* pure-FLOSS alternative - let alone > good or > > > even > > > >> adequate ones. > > > >> > > > >> -- Coren / Marc > > > >> > > >

> > > > My concern was about the (likely proprietary) JavaScript that is run

on > > the > > > customers' devices, but it turns out that it isn't actually

required > to > > > > browse and purchase? > >

> > > I very quickly looked, and it appears to be mostly open libraries and > > > Shopify specific code for making purchases. > > > However any amount of tracking could be hidden somewhere in their > > > JavaScript, and an audit today doesnt mean it is safe to use tomorrow, > > > as the source code is not publicly reviewed before being deployed. > >

> > > > And yes, it'd be nice if the server side was under WMF's control too! > >

> > > IMO it is more important that any service on the "wikimedia.org" > > > domain (and others owned by WMF) is free software. > >

> > > Outsourcing the service provision is fine, provided the software is > > > free software and the delegated service provider abides by our terms > > > of use and privacy policy. > >

> > > If we need to run non-free services, that isnt free software or can't > > > comply with our terms of use and privacy policy, it should be hosted > > > on a different domain, preferrably the domain of the service provider > > > so that it is abundantly clear who the transaction is really with. > >

> > > -- > > > John Vandenberg > >

> > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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>

Lisa Gruwell

11:46 p.m.

Adding my thoughts to build upon what Seddon has already said: The store is not the most mission critical work that we do, but it is working well. It is good to have people wearing Wikipedia t-shirts out there and to meet the need of the people who want to purchase Wikimedia merch. It is also a very nice thing to be able to thank an editor <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways> with a Wikipedia coffee mug from time to time. The store is a lean operation and is self sufficient. And the profits from the store fund the give away program, so the more we sell the more we give away. The team who works on this has done a very good job of keeping the costs low, producing products people want, and executing the operational side (they get people the products they ordered on time). We don't have large quantities of merch ringing up high warehouse costs. The merch is stored in Springfield, Missouri (not San Francisco) where the rent is low. Between sales and the giveaway program, the inventory moves pretty quickly. If we had to build out our own sales platform in order to do this, it probably would not be worth it. As it is, the shop is meeting a expressed need, turning a profit, and allowing us to give merch away. I think the team has done a very good job with the shop this year. On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Vi to <vituzzu.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

steinsplitter-wiki(a)live.com

wrote: > Why do we need such a Shop?

> (I must admit that i tested the job a year ago, the product was fine,

the

> shipment fast. A bit expensive for my taste.) > > I agree with other users that the shop schould be hosted on wikimedia > servers. > > --Steinsplitter > > > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:41:46 +0100 > > From: rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com > > To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who runs the Wikimedia Shop ? > > > > How many orders are handled by this shop? > > > > Rupert > > On Mar 21, 2016 17:32, "Joseph Seddon" <jseddon(a)wikimedia.org>

wrote:

> In an ideal world then I would definitely be pushing for a fully

wikimedia

> hosted online shop. I completely agree with the principles you've

raised.

> But moving in-house would require resources for building and

maintaining an > > ecommerce workflow that I don't think we collectively can justify.

The

> > setup and maintenance of any solution would require a degree of

people > > > power that I personally think could be spent better elsewhere in

the

> > > movement as I am sure you would agree. > > > > > > Throwing together an e-commerce site can be easy. But doing it

well,

> > > ensuring you are PCI compliant, ensuring its stable, secure etc.

etc.

> and > > > making it user friendly both front and back end. That takes time

and

> money. > > > Even if we did all that we would still in end up using a third

party

> > > payment gateway. To ensure the shop is viable and not a drain we

need

> to > > > keep it as efficient as possible. > > > > > > As Marc said Shopify may not be completely FLOSS but many of the > frameworks > > > that Shopify use in their hosted service are on available on Github > [1] and > > > I would encourage you to take a look. > > > > > > With regards to the URL, I as a customer would find a top 10

website

> > > sending me to a third party URL for their shop highly suspicious

and

I > > > certainly could treat it with suspicion. Making it clear that it is > hosted > > > by shopify I think would at least improve the situation. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Seddon > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Ricordisamoa > > > <ricordisamoa(a)openmailbox.org> wrote: > > > > Il 21/03/2016 13:14, Marc A. Pelletier ha scritto: > > > >> > > > >> On 2016-03-21 8:03 AM, Ricordisamoa wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> As in [1] I'd like to know whether the use of Shopify is > acceptable for > > > a > > > >>> FOSS-friendly organization. Thanks in advance. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> While Shopify isn't FLOSS-only, they're a fairly okay place that > does > > > >> contribute to FLOSS themselves (mostly in the Ruby and Go

worlds,

that

> >> intersect very little with our own tech). > >> > >> I don't think it's reasonable to expect that every external

supplier is > > >> all-FLOSS. For one, the movement would be pretty much stuck

without > > > >> hardware, networking gear, and power at the very least. Not

every

> >> service/provider even *have* pure-FLOSS alternative - let alone

good or > > even > > >> adequate ones. > > >> > > >> -- Coren / Marc > > >> > > > > > > My concern was about the (likely proprietary) JavaScript that is

run

on > > the > > > customers' devices, but it turns out that it isn't actually

required > to > > > > browse and purchase? > > > > > > I very quickly looked, and it appears to be mostly open libraries

and

> > Shopify specific code for making purchases. > > However any amount of tracking could be hidden somewhere in their > > JavaScript, and an audit today doesnt mean it is safe to use

tomorrow,

> > as the source code is not publicly reviewed before being deployed. > > > > > And yes, it'd be nice if the server side was under WMF's control

too! > > > > > > IMO it is more important that any service on the "wikimedia.org" > > > domain (and others owned by WMF) is free software. > > > > > > Outsourcing the service provision is fine, provided the software is > > > free software and the delegated service provider abides by our

terms

> > > of use and privacy policy. > > > > > > If we need to run non-free services, that isnt free software or

can't

> > > comply with our terms of use and privacy policy, it should be

hosted

> > > on a different domain, preferrably the domain of the service

provider

> > so that it is abundantly clear who the transaction is really with. > > > > -- > > John Vandenberg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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,

Joseph Seddon

10:14 p.m.

Steinsplitter, There has been and continues to be a long standing desire from volunteers and donors to get merchandise whether through events, competitions, giveaways or purchasing. The fact we get 1000+ orders or so a year (an educated guess) shows the idea of the store has merits. It might not be for everyone but if it serves those who use it and it's self sufficient then I don't see many negatives of having one. Especially if we ensure there are multiple other avenues for users to get such merchandise, especially to ensure that cost is not a limiting factor within our movement. It would be great if the store could fund all such merchandise giveaways. Seddon On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Steinsplitter Wiki < steinsplitter-wiki(a)live.com> wrote:

...

wikimedia

> hosted online shop. I completely agree with the principles you've

raised.

> But moving in-house would require resources for building and

maintaining an

and

> making it user friendly both front and back end. That takes time and

money.

> Even if we did all that we would still in end up using a third party > payment gateway. To ensure the shop is viable and not a drain we need

> keep it as efficient as possible. > > As Marc said Shopify may not be completely FLOSS but many of the

frameworks

> that Shopify use in their hosted service are on available on Github

[1] and

hosted

acceptable for

> a > >>> FOSS-friendly organization. Thanks in advance. > >> > >> > >> While Shopify isn't FLOSS-only, they're a fairly okay place that

does

> >> contribute to FLOSS themselves (mostly in the Ruby and Go worlds,

that

> >> intersect very little with our own tech). > >> > >> I don't think it's reasonable to expect that every external

supplier is

good or

> even > >> adequate ones. > >> > >> -- Coren / Marc > >> > > > > My concern was about the (likely proprietary) JavaScript that is run

> the > > customers' devices, but it turns out that it isn't actually required

browse and purchase?

And yes, it'd be nice if the server side was under WMF's control too!

_______________________________________________ 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,

-- Seddon *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation*

Gordon Joly

22 Mar 22 Mar

1:51 p.m.

On 21/03/16 19:39, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:

...

(I must admit that i tested the job a year ago, the product was fine, the shipment fast. A bit expensive for my taste.)

Expensive? The profit adds funds the WMF, surely. Gordo

Fæ

2:40 p.m.

On 22 March 2016 at 11:51, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:

...

On 21/03/16 19:39, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:

(I must admit that i tested the job a year ago, the product was fine, the shipment fast. A bit expensive for my taste.)

Expensive? The profit adds funds the WMF, surely.

This is a logical fallacy that many charities fall into, and end up damaging their reputation in the tabloid press when it turns out that 80%+ of donations "disappear" in costs such as commercial fees, paying chugger agencies and bonuses and six-figure salaries for fundraising/marketing directors, rather than going to the intended beneficiary. Here's a highly likely pragmatic scenario... if, say, a $20 "donation" to get a WMF merchandise tee-shirt disappeared as: * $ 12.00 basic transaction and product costs * $ 6.00 profit/fees to intermediary organizations * $ 1.80 WMF administration costs * 20 cents is the outcome "donation" to WMF causes (1%) Then yes, the transaction adds funds to the WMF, but in a really crappy way where the system probably cost several times more in WMF staff time to set up than it will make over many years, comparatively huge profit margins are going to unnamed parties (at least unnamed for the purchaser or WMF volunteers), and in a non-transparent way too. Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Tim Landscheidt

3:38 p.m.

Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

>> (I must admit that i tested the job a year ago, the product was fine, the shipment fast. A bit expensive for my taste.)

...

> Expensive? The profit adds funds the WMF, surely.

...

Here's a highly likely pragmatic scenario... if, say, a $20 "donation" to get a WMF merchandise tee-shirt disappeared as: * $ 12.00 basic transaction and product costs * $ 6.00 profit/fees to intermediary organizations * $ 1.80 WMF administration costs * 20 cents is the outcome "donation" to WMF causes (1%)

...

Then yes, the transaction adds funds to the WMF, but in a really crappy way where the system probably cost several times more in WMF staff time to set up than it will make over many years, comparatively huge profit margins are going to unnamed parties (at least unnamed for the purchaser or WMF volunteers), and in a non-transparent way too.

Your point is made much more succinct in the Trademark Pol- icy (cf. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy#policy-commercialmerch): | You may make merchandise with the Wikimedia trademarks for | commercial use, if: | - You obtain a trademark license from the Wikimedia Founda- | tion; | - You follow our Visual Identity Guidelines; and | - You truthfully advertise to customers how much of the | selling price, if any, will be donated to Wikimedia sites. The problem is the belief that a charity with a focus on distributing knowledge must have its own t-shirt shop, probably fostered by firm disciples getting free mugs. Tim

Fæ

4:53 p.m.

Tim, thanks for raising the Trademark Policy. Joseph, can you point me to where https://store.wikimedia.org explains exactly how much of the "donation" is profit going to WMF funds and how much is administration and costs (both supplier and WMF costs of administration)? My assumption is that "You truthfully advertise to customers how much of the selling price, if any, will be donated to Wikimedia sites" is an ethical standard that applies to the Wikimedia Store and Fund raising department as much as it is it legally required by the WMF for Chapters or other organizations that sell or create products with the trademark. Thanks, Fae On 22 March 2016 at 13:38, Tim Landscheidt <tim(a)tim-landscheidt.de> wrote:

...

Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>> (I must admit that i tested the job a year ago, the product was fine, the shipment fast. A bit expensive for my taste.)

> Expensive? The profit adds funds the WMF, surely.

-- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Nathan

5:01 p.m.

FWIW, it's clear that the trademark policy is intended to apply to users other than the WMF. This is all a bit overblown, considering the tiny scale of use and money involved. On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> (I must admit that i tested the job a year ago, the product was fine,

the shipment fast. A bit expensive for my taste.)

> Expensive? The profit adds funds the WMF, surely.

> This is a logical fallacy that many charities fall into, and end up > damaging their reputation in the tabloid press when it turns out that > 80%+ of donations "disappear" in costs such as commercial fees, paying > chugger agencies and bonuses and six-figure salaries for

fundraising/marketing

directors, rather than going to the intended beneficiary.

Your point is made much more succinct in the Trademark Pol- icy (cf.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy#policy-commercialmerch ):

| You may make merchandise with the Wikimedia trademarks for | commercial use, if: | - You obtain a trademark license from the Wikimedia Founda- | tion; | - You follow our Visual Identity Guidelines; and | - You truthfully advertise to customers how much of the | selling price, if any, will be donated to Wikimedia sites. The problem is the belief that a charity with a focus on distributing knowledge must have its own t-shirt shop, probably fostered by firm disciples getting free mugs. Tim

-- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ 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>

John Mark Vandenberg

6:07 p.m.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

FWIW, it's clear that the trademark policy is intended to apply to users other than the WMF. This is all a bit overblown, considering the tiny scale of use and money involved.

IIRC, there were several affiliates that were previously running a store, and naturally supporting the most relevant languages of their community. They were effectively shutdown, and localisation lost due to centralisation to the WMF. The trademark policy provides a sound basis for this type of use of the trademarks, and could allow affiliates to re-open their own shops. I'd like to know if anyone has received a trademark license under that "Commercial merchandise" provision of the trademark policy. It would also be interesting to hear from anyone whose application for Commercial merchandise was rejected. -- John Vandenberg

Pine W

7:47 p.m.

I am having a very stretched out discussion, over the course literally of multiple years, to try to get approval from WMF to produce or aquire Wikipedia-branded hats. So far no trademark license has been granted. I have heard multiple times that the WMF store may get these hats, but after multiple requests over the course of years, this has yet to happen and I at this rate it will never happen. Given the lack of progress in the WMF store, I would appreciate it if WMF would grant a trademark license for Wikipedia-branded apparel for independent production to affiliates who request it. The lack of progress so far is quite frustrating. Pine

Sam Klein

7:51 p.m.

Having a shop that is run with low overhead by someone who specializes in handling inventory and shipping, is a very good idea. I've had to do this both in-house and externally at a few organizations and when your shipping volume is as low as the WM Shop's currently is, it doesn't make sense to do it yourself. Economies of scale are tremendous until you reach the stage of having a large storage unit and are shipping thousands of items a day. On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:07 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Is this true? Please record any actual examples on: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_trademarks

...

The trademark policy provides a sound basis for this type of use of the trademarks, and could allow affiliates to re-open their own shops.

Pine W

7:54 p.m.

The current practice, in my experience, is maximum red tape. Pine On Mar 22, 2016 10:52, "Sam Klein" <sjklein(a)hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:

...

Is this true? Please record any actual examples on: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_trademarks

The trademark policy provides a sound basis for this type of use of the trademarks, and could allow affiliates to re-open their own shops.

Yes. As far as I know, any affiliate that wants to run its own shop (for instance, including localized swag if they know inexpensive local manufacturers & want to set up in-country shipping to avoid international shipping fees) should be able to do so with minimal red tape. SJ _______________________________________________ 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>

John Mark Vandenberg

23 Mar 23 Mar

1:07 a.m.

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Sam Klein <sjklein(a)hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:

...

.. On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:07 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Is this true? Please record any actual examples on: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_trademarks

I dont have any actual examples, only possibly faulty memories of events that mostly affected other affiliates. As I recall, and apologies in advance for my memories fading or being faulty, the French, Italian and German chapters were running what could be considered a store before the WMF's "Chapters Agreement" and/or "Fundraising Agreements" of 2009/2010 were required to be signed by chapters , and the language of those agreements removed the possibility of merchandise. Again as I recall, many chapters tried to negotiate amendments to that prohibition, and I vaguely recall the French chapter being successful, and I vaguely recall the Italian chapter being unsuccessful. I see the French chapter's shop is still open. http://wikimediashop.spreadshirt.net/ I do not see a shop for Italia or Deutschland, but locals may be able to find what I can not. Any details regarding the old chapters stores, especially German and Italian, would be most welcomed to augment and possibly correct my vague recollections. Sj, 99% of this happened during your time on the board, so it would be great if you can help provide some clarity with whatever memories you have. -- John Vandenberg

Pine W

1:22 a.m.

Fascinating. My discussions with WMF Trademarks and WMF Fundraising lead me to think that they didn't know of the existence of these historical arrangements, because if they had I would think that they would have swiftly approved the license request for logo use on hats, modeled after the agreement with WMFR. My experience with WMF Trademarks in general has been mixed. Sometimes they're great and resolutions are swift, and sometimes there's clunkiness and dropped balls. The situation with logo licenses for apparel is one of the latter. Pine

Sam Klein

2:23 a.m.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:07 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Again as I recall, many chapters tried to negotiate amendments to that prohibition, and I vaguely recall the French chapter being successful, and I vaguely recall the Italian chapter being unsuccessful. I see the French chapter's shop is still open. http://wikimediashop.spreadshirt.net/ I do not see a shop for Italia or Deutschland, but locals may be able to find what I can not. Any details regarding the old chapters stores, especially German and Italian, would be most welcomed to augment and possibly correct my vague recollections. Sj, 99% of this happened during your time on the board, so it would be great if you can help provide some clarity with whatever memories you have.

TLDR: If a local group comes up with a swag item and design, it should be possible to get that into the hands of supporters and community members in short order. What group produces the item, from where it is shipped in what batch quantities, and who pays for the item, depend a bit on context. I discussed this with lawyers on staff a number of times while on the board. My understanding [lawyers, please weigh in to correct me as needed] was that a separate agreement was necessary, but did not need to be onerous, and could be worked out for stores run by established organizations (such as french and german stores). It is possible to be extra cautious to the extent of not allowing any swag to use trademarks unless the central licensor has direct control over the quality of the produced product, though some argue that this is not necessary.[1] This extra caution could be a reason not to allow one-off initiatives such as a run of hats carried out by a user group. But established chapters & thematic orgs with offices & administrative staff should be able to run their own regional store (providing in-country shipping, a website in the national languages, &c) which could handle any one-offs requested by user groups or projects in the area. Finally, for cases where the WMF is feeling trademark-conservative (smaller stores, or any swag with a possibility of recipients feeling that there was some trademark confusion), it has two further options: a] it can cover the full cost of local swag (if you give things away rather than selling them, you don't trigger the risk mentioned above, or iirc the related clause in the affiliate agreements)... and b] it can arrange to make the swag in the global store, and cover the difference in int'l shipping costs (or ship the results in bulk to the regional affiliate for further distribution). Actual data on which groups want stores and swag, and what they are looking for, has been scant. I recommend organizing such plans and designs on meta, and noting any open tm-related discussion threads there. If it turns out that inspiring designs, requested by community groups, are unable to be produced because the global store cannot produce them, local groups cannot get a grant to cover their production, and local groups cannot get a simple TM agreement to let them recoup their costs from the recipients, then something need to be fixed. A fix, once there is a specific problem in hand, should not be difficult. Warmly, SJ [1] For a brief & incomplete review of relevant issues, see: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&…

Pine W

10:14 p.m.

Thanks SJ. I largely agree with you there. There is a complicated backstory about the hats, but I think it's safe to say that we in Cascadia aren't especially interested in running our own merch store. However, given the years of delays of getting the hats into the WMF store, it would be nice if we could get a license to make occasional production runs of hats and other merchandise and resell the merchandise at cost, particularly if WikiConference USA happens in Seattle later this year. In general, WMF Trademarks is highly protective of the WMF marks. Some of that is understandable, but it adds a lot of red tape and delays that I believe sometimes delay or obstruct progress toward goals that are more important than zealous and highly detailed trademark protections. Pine On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Sam Klein <sjklein(a)hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:

...

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:07 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Joseph Seddon

24 Mar 24 Mar

2:27 a.m.

Hey John et. al Apologies for the delaying in responding to the last few emails. I want to try and cover a couple of the points that been raised. I'll first start with the history. I am very much aware of the background surrounding merchandise, in particular the chapters and the changes in the chapter agreements back in 2009 that essentially stopped all that. At the time I was on the board of Wikimedia UK and I very much remember the frustrations that surrounded the changes. In terms of who has and who hasn't run commercial stores I am not going to even attempt to summarise that here and I honestly don't think people rehashing the particular individual histories of trademark agreements of the last half a decade for how ever many affiliates have had them. We all have far more interesting and worthwhile things to talk about in the movement. So here's to looking forward and where we can do things better: Where no exchange of money is involved, the Trademark policy already does a good job of allowing affiliates or members of the community to print or make one-off merchandise to give away at the events they run, or to members of their organisations. Where we could do probably do better is where the exchange of money is only for the specific purpose of cost recovery. The sort of thing that Pine was talking about in relation to Wikiconference USA. Merchandise isn't cheap and where possible it makes sense to be able to offset the cost. It's probably an area we should strive to make easier, more consistent and less of a struggle for affiliates and where we could probably make the biggest impact in improving the ability of affiliates to produce small runs of cool stuff. The operating of stores by affiliates is one that I think there is a lot of potential in. The WMF store, in its very focused scope, works well. But there are a lot of areas where we could do better. Multilingual store and checkpoint support is lacking, international shipping is expensive, support for local currency should be better and an ability to print on demand is an area that needs work. I think that this could be improved through other stores. It just needs to be done right and a good framework set out for chapters to do this work. I and others will need to time work out what that will be. This whole topic was something that was one of the first that was discussed about areas that at as department we could do better in terms of working with the community in. There is a lot of good will from those above meand I think over time we will see some good changes here. It's not the only area I am working on and we are only 6-7 weeks into me being on board but I will get to it. I am going to be in Berlin for the Wikimedia Conference and I think it would be a good place to start conversations about how we can move forward in an area that realistically should not be controversial in any way but that should be done well. Regards Seddon On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:07 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Sam Klein <sjklein(a)hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:

.. On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:07 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com wrote:

Is this true? Please record any actual examples on: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_trademarks

-- Seddon *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation*

Pine W

11:31 p.m.

Hi Seddon, Thanks for this summary of the issues. Streamlining and standardizing trademark agreements with affiliates for branded merch production would be great. Even supposing that the US affiliates went to the trouble of opening a collective merch store, the production and shipping costs for small batches of high quality apparel are so high that I doubt that there would be a good business case for us to try to turn a store into a source of revenue that earns much more than it costs to operate. That said, it seems to me that it should be OK for affiliates like WMFR to run merch stores and generate income from them that exceeds cost recovery so long as the proceeds are used by the affiliates in a manner that's compatible with the affiliate and Wikimedia missions. Pine On Mar 23, 2016 17:28, "Joseph Seddon" <jseddon(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

good job of allowing affiliates or members of the community to print or make one-off merchandise to give away at the events they run, or to

members

...

of their organisations. Where we could do probably do better is where the exchange of money is

only

...

for the specific purpose of cost recovery. The sort of thing that Pine was talking about in relation to Wikiconference USA. Merchandise isn't cheap and where possible it makes sense to be able to offset the cost. It's probably an area we should strive to make easier, more consistent and less of a struggle for affiliates and where we could probably make the biggest impact in improving the ability of affiliates to produce small runs of

cool

...

stuff. The operating of stores by affiliates is one that I think there is a lot

...

potential in. The WMF store, in its very focused scope, works well. But there are a lot of areas where we could do better. Multilingual store and checkpoint support is lacking, international shipping is expensive,

support

...

for local currency should be better and an ability to print on demand is

...

area that needs work. I think that this could be improved through other stores. It just needs to be done right and a good framework set out for chapters to do this work. I and others will need to time work out what

that

...

will be. This whole topic was something that was one of the first that was

discussed

...

about areas that at as department we could do better in terms of working with the community in. There is a lot of good will from those above meand

...

think over time we will see some good changes here. It's not the only area I am working on and we are only 6-7 weeks into me being on board but I

will

...

get to it. I am going to be in Berlin for the Wikimedia Conference and I think it would be a good place to start conversations about how we can move forward in an area that realistically should not be controversial in any way but that should be done well. Regards Seddon On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:07 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Sam Klein <sjklein(a)hcs.harvard.edu> > wrote: > >.. > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:07 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <

jayvdb(a)gmail.com

...

wrote:

Is this true? Please record any actual examples on: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_trademarks

-- Seddon *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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>

Joseph Seddon

22 Mar 22 Mar

8:14 p.m.

Hi Fae, Apologies for the length. I'll take your question into two parts: Firstly about how we use the funds. We are extremely explicit about how the proceeds are used: On the front of the store: *"We use the proceeds from the store to send thank you gifts to the volunteers who make Wikipedia possible."* In the shop FAQ: *Who profits from this shop?**100% of the proceeds from the Wikipedia store go to the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects. The profits are earmarked toward our Merchandise Giveaways Program to reward those who have made an impact on the projects.* And on the FAQ on meta a slight variant of the above: *Who profits from this shop?* *100% of the profits from the Wikimedia Shop go to the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not the intended purpose of the Wikimedia Shop to become a Profit center. All proceeds are filtered back into the shop to keep production costs low, subsidize shipping and help to provide merchandise specifically aimed towards community members.* On the point specifically about what the profit margin of the store is and the percentage of any one purchase going towards the above. At no point do we claim that any purchase is a "donation" and we do state the following: *Are purchases tax deductible?* All of the purchase price of the item goes directly to funding the cost of the merchandise and the shop overhead, therefore we're not able to provide a tax receipt for any of the purchase. You can make a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, which may be tax deductible in the country where you donate from, by visiting donate.wikimedia.org. What is not currently made explicitly clear on any of those pages is what percentage of a merchandise bought goes towards community merchandise so we could do a little better in that respect, and it is something I will follow up on. It's important to keep in mind that it's not quite as simple as if you purchase X then Y goes to community merchandise since we also subsidise shipping which is also covered in the FAQ page which states the following: *Why does shipping cost so much?*Shipping products internationally is always going to cost more than a domestic shipment. We've created the 'Wikimedia flat-rate global' shipping option, which is $15 USD, to provide a cost-effective way to send a shipment anywhere in the world. In some cases your shipment costs could be well under $15 USD, but when it isn't, and when your order is under 5lbs (about 2.2Kg), we provide a subsidized flat rate so customers in all parts of the world can purchase products at a reasonable rate. I hope that covers the majority of what you asked. Seddon On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> (I must admit that i tested the job a year ago, the product was fine,

the shipment fast. A bit expensive for my taste.)

> Expensive? The profit adds funds the WMF, surely.

fundraising/marketing

directors, rather than going to the intended beneficiary.

Your point is made much more succinct in the Trademark Pol- icy (cf.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy#policy-commercialmerch ):

-- Seddon *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation*

Gerard Meijssen

4:26 p.m.

Hoi, With the same pragmatism a different scenario. If say a $20,- donation arrives and a T-shirt is send, * $12 basic transaction and product costs * $12 pro rata costs of having our "own" product to sell produce * 1,80 WMF administration costs * $5,80 loss on every T-shirt Thanks, GerardM On 22 March 2016 at 13:40, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 22 March 2016 at 11:51, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:

On 21/03/16 19:39, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote: > (I must admit that i tested the job a year ago, the product was fine,

the shipment fast. A bit expensive for my taste.)

Expensive? The profit adds funds the WMF, surely.

John Mark Vandenberg

21 Mar 21 Mar

3:30 p.m.

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Joseph Seddon <jseddon(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Hey Florence, Regarding your first question the shop is Foundation owned and run but hosted by Shopify, an e-commerce provider. [1] The orders are then sent to our fulfillment partner, SWAGBOT. [2]

That it is run by Shopify appears to only be stated on the shipping page: http://store.wikimedia.org/pages/shipping https://www.google.com/search?q=shopify+site%3Astore.wikimedia.org I think it would be appropriate to explicitly & prominently mention this on https://store.wikimedia.org/pages/terms-of-service https://store.wikimedia.org/pages/privacy-policy Especially the Privacy policy, since it says "The Wikipedia store is operated by third-party service providers, and, as part of their operations, they may process your information. Please consult their privacy policies for further information." And then doesnt say who those third party service providers are. Here in Indonesia, when I go to https://shopify.com, I am forcibly sent to https://www.shopify.co.id/ , and when I click on Terms of Use or Privacy I am sent to 404 pages. https://www.shopify.co.id/legal/terms https://www.shopify.co.id/legal/privacy -- John Vandenberg

Joseph Seddon

3:55 p.m.

What your saying makes sense. I'll take a look into this Jon and get back to you as soon as I can. Seddon On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Joseph Seddon <jseddon(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Hey Florence, Regarding your first question the shop is Foundation owned and run but hosted by Shopify, an e-commerce provider. [1] The orders are then sent to our fulfillment partner, SWAGBOT. [2]

2949

days inactive

2952

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

36 comments

18 participants

tags (0)

participants (18)

Florence Devouard
Fæ
Gerard Meijssen
Gordon Joly
James Alexander
John Mark Vandenberg
Joseph Seddon
K. Peachey
Lisa Gruwell
Marc A. Pelletier
Nathan
Pine W
Ricordisamoa
rupert THURNER
Sam Klein
Steinsplitter Wiki
Tim Landscheidt
Vi to