On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Mitar mmitar@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
Please see below the reply by Rob from MusicBrainz (forwarding because he is not on the mailing list):
[...]
There is no requirement for supporting us, but we're quick to point out that a company that makes financial gains using our data really ought to give something back to us in order for us to keep the lights on and improve what we do.
And, this is working!
Thanks for sharing this, Mitar (and Rob!). It's an interesting approach.
We generally approach private donors with an argument that boils down to "if Wikipedia is useful to you, give something back to keep it going and growing".
The same argument surely applies to corporate donors. If Wikipedia is useful to them, they too should give something back, no strings attached. There is no need for large corporate donors to style themselves -- or be styled by us -- as "philanthropists" if they give $100,000, any more than the small donor who gives $15 thereby imagines they are becoming a philanthropist. It's just an aspect of good citizenship, right?
Are we seeing corporates contributing in that spirit? I'm not sure we are. And if we're not, then this can indeed be framed as a moral issue, along the lines of what Rob, as I understand him, suggests in his mail.
Now, for such a moral argument to gain traction, the public at large needs to understand who profits financially from our work. If -- and only if -- the general public understand that, then it will become a PR problem for a major company to be seen to benefit financially from a volunteer effort, without giving anything back.
So perhaps there is work to be done here to build wider awareness of the income streams that are based on Wikimedia content. Ultimately, providing such information is also consistent with the movement's goal of transparency.
Andreas