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 <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote:
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 <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com
<javascript:;>> wrote:
Brion, are you aware of any WMF tech work aimed
specifically at helping
large for-profits engage with our projects? Andreas mentioned a
side-project for Amazon.
Regardless of specific instances, in principle, would that be a
reasonable
place to invest general donation revenue, or
should we get the
for-profits
to fund such work if it arises?
On Monday, 29 February 2016, Brion Vibber <bvibber(a)wikimedia.org
<javascript:;>> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com
<javascript:;>
<javascript:;>> wrote:
> 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.
What non-hypothetical work are you referring to?
{{cn}}
-- brion
> 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 <jimmywales(a)ymail.com
<javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> >
> > > 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. Despite that he takes every opportunity to
attack
me,
> > and surely it will disappoint him to know, but my general view is
100%
> > in agreement with him on the core issue
- where commercial re-users
are
> > > getting enormous value from our work, they should be paying for the
> > > engineering resources required for their support.
> >
> > > Here are two
push-backs on the idea that I do think are deserving
of
> >
serious consideration:
>
> > 1. Part of our core mission
as a community is free access - will a
"pay
> > for service" model for APIs for
commercial re-users alienate a
> > significant portion of the community? Does requiring some to pay
while
> > > others get it free raise questions similar to those around "net
> > > neutrality"?
> >
> > > As a historical
footnote, there was a deal many years ago with
> > >
Answers.com to give them access to an API which they used to
present
our
> content alongside many other resources.
They paid for that - not a
huge
> > amount, but it was meaningful back in those days. I don't recall
this
> > > being particularly controversial.
> >
> > > 2. In many cases
it may be too simplistic to simply say "a company
is
> >
benefiting, so they should pay". The point is that *we* also
benefit,
> > > from increased readership for example, from our work making it to
end
> >
users as technology changes and as the way people get information
> > changes. There is certainly a situation where setting too high a
price
> > > would simply push commercial re-users to not use our content at
all,
so
> > sensible pricing would be key. And
with real serious ongoing
analysis,
> > > the right price could still be "free" even if we in principle
charge.
> >
> > > ----
> >
> > > For me, despite
those being real concerns, I come down firmly on
the
> side of being careful about falling into a trap
of doing lots of
> expensive work for commercial re-users without having them pay. I
don't
> > actually think we do a lot of that right now. What I'd like to see
is
> > > more of it, and I'm pretty agnostic about whether that's in the
form
of
> > > "self-financing cottage industries" or a "separate
for-profit arm"
or
> > > within the current engineering
organization. I can see arguments
for
> any of those.
> On 2/28/16 8:02 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj(a)alk.edu.pl <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
<javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
>
> > We COULD outsource most of
our tech (I'm not supporting this, I'm
just
> > >> giving perspective).
> > >>
> >
> >
> > > One thing I've been wondering about of late is
how much
donor-funded
the
> > work the WMF is doing that is primarily designed to support
commercial
> > re-users.
>
> > The other day, I read an
Engineering report on the Wikimedia blog
that
> > > spoke of the Wikipedia Zero team doing "side project" work for
Amazon
> >
Kindle and Google Play.
>
> > I was thinking, Why are
donors paying for that? – especially at a
time
> when
> > the Foundation worries about being able to sustain fundraising
growth.
> >
> > > Wikimedia content
is worth billions. Wikidata in particular has
huge
> > > > potential value for commercial re-users.[1] So have the link-ups
> > between
> > > > Wikipedia and Amazon, Google, Bing etc.
> > >
> > > >
It's clear that even in 2008, the Foundation was inundated with
> > "multiple
> > > > product-specific pitches" from Google.[2] I imagine the breadth
and
> > > number
> > > > of these pitches from Silicon Valley companies can only have
> increased
> > > > since then.
> > >
> > > > Sure,
Wikimedia is committed to using its donated funds to make
> content
> > > > freely available under an open licence, but does that mean donors
> > should
> > > > also be paying for programming work that is primarily designed to
> > support
> > > > commercial re-users?
> > >
> > > > That
work could be done by self-financing cottage industries
built
up
> > by
> > > > Wikimedians, working for profit, or even a for-profit arm of the
> > > > Foundation. All the Foundation would have to do would be to
provide
>
basic
> > > documentation; the rest could be left to the open market.
> >
> > > The astonishing
thing to me is that there seems to be very little
or
> no
> > > > publicity and transparency from the WMF about developments in
this
>
area.
> > > For instance, I was unable to find any WMF communication about
> Wikipedia
> > > Smart Lookup being integrated in the Amazon Kindle (something
Amazon
> > > announced in 2014),[3] even though
WMF teams clearly have done
> > programming
> > > work on this. You'd have thought having Wikipedia search embedded
in
> a
> > > > major product like the Kindle is a big thing, worthy of a
> > > community-facing
> > > > announcement?
> > >
> > > > In
short, I think the WMF should collate and publicise more
> information
> > > > about commercial re-use applications, and be transparent about
the
work
> > it's doing to support such re-use.
Maybe there is another
"transparency
> > > gap" here.[4]
> >
> > > And if there is
any work that the Foundation is currently doing
that
> > > > primarily benefits commercial re-users, then I think it should
stop
> > doing
> > > > that for free (= at donors' expense), and allow for-profit
> contractors
> > to
> > > > spring up and pitch for that work. That would allow the
non-profit
> > foundation to focus on user-facing
improvements.
>
> > Andreas
>
> > [1]
>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/25/wikidata_turns_the_world_into_a_dat…
> > [2] See Sue Gardner's email quoted on
the last two pages of
> >
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/sandberg.pdf
> > [3]
>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/forums/kindleqna/ref=cs_hc_k_m_oldes…
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap#…
> > > >
_______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
<javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > > > Unsubscribe:
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
<javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > ?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 <javascript:;>
<javascript:;>
<javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
<javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > ?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 <javascript:;>
<javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
<javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > ?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 <javascript:;>
<javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
<javascript:;>
?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Anthony Cole
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
?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 <javascript:;>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
?subject=unsubscribe>