Mailing List Archive

[Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of thinking:

Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to the
services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free
access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation
in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising strategies.
The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
-Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
"imagine a world where every human being can freely share in the sum of all
knowledge" - forget that we can make a quid by charging now as we are the
best and only remaining encyclopedia


- suppose its time stop imagining anything beyond a dollar sign,
- WMF could start by charging Google for WikiData access
- millions of contributors and benefactors over the last 15 years have
worked to create and support that idea

those be my perspective, now my thinking is not so great and definitely not
repeatable even on this list

Monetizing Wikimedia, premium access mumble mumble mumble,
cough....................

On 16 January 2016 at 17:23, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of thinking:
>
> Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to the
> services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
> providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
> Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free
> access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
> line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation
> in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising strategies.
> The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
> strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
> -Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>




--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
On 16 January 2016 at 19:23, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of thinking:
>
> Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to the
> services and APIs,


Brace yourselves...


> expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
> providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
> Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free
> access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
> line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation
> in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising strategies.
> The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
> strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07


Looking for additional revenue sources isn't a bad idea, but charging for
premium access is likely to annoy the community to a degree that will make
the great Visual Editor revolt look like some quiet and polite murmuring.

Cheers,
Craig
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
Do you think?

I'm genuinely not sure.
I think that the difference in scale from what Google does with our data
and the general developer/researcher is pretty big. One million times big.
I actually think that "over-the-top" players like Google do actually
exploit free licensed materials like Wikipedia... I mean, their Knowledge
Vault is probably 100 bigger than Wikidata, but they are not supposed to
share it. It's an internal asset. And it's not matter of CC0 or CCBYSA:
they can keep it hidden.

There very, very few players who can exploit commons like this: do we
need/have the right to address this? Is it a problem?

Aubrey

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
wrote:

> On 16 January 2016 at 19:23, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of
> thinking:
> >
> > Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> > Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to
> the
> > services and APIs,
>
>
> Brace yourselves...
>
>
> > expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
> > providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
> > Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free
> > access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
> > line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation
> > in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising
> strategies.
> > The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
> > strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> > Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
>
>
> Looking for additional revenue sources isn't a bad idea, but charging for
> premium access is likely to annoy the community to a degree that will make
> the great Visual Editor revolt look like some quiet and polite murmuring.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
> Looking for additional revenue sources isn't a bad idea, but charging for
> premium access is likely to annoy the community to a degree that will make
> the great Visual Editor revolt look like some quiet and polite murmuring.

That's definitely a conversation worth having, as it helps us understand
what we want to do, and who we want to be.

Do we want to charge for knowledge? Of course not. But do we want to be
able to introduce cool new tools for everyone faster, because e.g. Google
is willing to pay for their development if they can use it for some time
earlier as "premium"? I don't know yet. Let's talk.

I don't intuitively object to Google paying for some additional features,
they ride on the back of our content in many situations, and we don't even
know how many people see it (content is cached).

I do, however, believe that if we ever decide to do this, with the
community's backing, any charging should resemble grants a bit (there
should be a clear time horizon when what we are able to develop as "
premium" becomes standard and free; if it is also useful for the general
public).

Best,

Dj
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
On 16 January 2016 at 22:09, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl> wrote:

> Do we want to charge for knowledge? Of course not. But do we want to be
> able to introduce cool new tools for everyone faster, because e.g. Google
> is willing to pay for their development if they can use it for some time
> earlier as "premium"? I don't know yet. Let's talk
>
Realistically, the only way that I can see that the community would stand
for this is if the tool in question was something that was unquestionably
of use to a large segment of the community as a whole, and if the WMF
clearly did not have the resources to build it themselves without outside
assistance. But perhaps I'm wrong there.


> I do, however, believe that if we ever decide to do this, with the
> community's backing, any charging should resemble grants a bit (there
> should be a clear time horizon when what we are able to develop as "
> premium" becomes standard and free; if it is also useful for the general
> public).
>
If we're going to go down this road, I agree with this.

Cheers,
Craig
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of thinking:
>
> Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> Foundation,
...
> or limiting the Wikimedia Foundation's growth.

What a good idea.

Richard.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freemiumly share
in the sum of all knowledge." XD

Il 16/01/2016 10:23, Pete Forsyth ha scritto:
> I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of thinking:
>
> Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to the
> services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
> providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
> Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free
> access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
> line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation
> in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising strategies.
> The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
> strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
> -Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
If we are concerned about Google taking unfair advantage of Wikipedia, one simple solution is to allow content donations with a non-commercial restriction. Right now, the concept of "free" include commercial use. An added bonus to this is that we would get a lot more institutional donations of content if we allowed an non-commercial option.
My problem with allowing for paying for "premium access" is that we are allowing Google to have a priviledged position. There is no way around that.
What is the impetus behind this proposal? Its not like we are lacking money. And limiting growth of the Foundation is not a bad thing... at least not to the community.


> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> From: ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org
> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
>
> "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freemiumly share
> in the sum of all knowledge." XD
>
> Il 16/01/2016 10:23, Pete Forsyth ha scritto:
> > I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of thinking:
> >
> > Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> > Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to the
> > services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
> > providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
> > Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free
> > access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
> > line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation
> > in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising strategies.
> > The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
> > strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> > Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
> > -Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
Interesting.

It would make sense in general, but if we de-contextualize Wikimedia.

The potential of Wikimedia projects are connected with the question that
they are free. Having a premium access means two kind of risks:

a) losing the community, and Wikipedia will become quickly a "big
outdated content repository" without the community
b) managing a service, because a premium access would have a "premium
service"

It's normal that someone else build a business on Wikimedia's content,
but this allowed by the license, it's more difficult that Wikimedia
Foundation can do a business with this content.

Kind regards

On 16.01.2016 10:23, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of thinking:
>
> Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to the
> services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
> providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
> Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free
> access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
> line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation
> in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising strategies.
> The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
> strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
> -Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


--
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
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
If an API license raised a meaningful amount of money then whoever bought
it would have some influence over the organisation, and if it didn't raise
a meaningful amount of money I doubt it would be worth doing.

There are other options that should be less contentious:

Emailing donors, explaining that we have now launched an endowment fund and
inviting them to mention Wikimedia in their will. We currently email donors
annually - a mid year endowment fund email should not conflict with that.

License the logos for some merchandising aimed at the public. I would
happily buy a couple of Wikimedia calendars to give as Christmas/New Year
gifts, and yes I appreciate that for timing reasons that would mean using
the Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 winners to illustrate a 2017 calendar.

Shift from asking for one off donations to asking people to sign up for a
regular donation. I don't know about other countries, but this would be an
easy move in the UK - it's what every efficient charity fundraiser would do.

Where you can take legally advantage of the tax man, go for it. In the UK
if you have registered charity status as WMUK does, then under the Gift Aid
system the Taxman will add 25% to every donation where the donor confirms
they are a UK taxpayer. I would be disappointed if WMUK couldn't get a
clear majority of UK donors to tick the box if they took over fundraising
in the UK. But having looked at the current WMF system I seriously doubt
the WMF gets even a quarter of UK donors to go through Gift Aid.

WereSpielChequers


>
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 21:59:50 +1000
> From: Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAHF+k39biDMp4YcDdA+7NCALKJJpigDNFFad25+46g4AsP8bXw@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 16 January 2016 at 19:23, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of
> thinking:
> >
> > Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> > Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to
> the
> > services and APIs,
>
>
> Brace yourselves...
>
>
> > expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
> > providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
> > Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free
> > access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
> > line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation
> > in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising
> strategies.
> > The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
> > strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> > Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
>
>
> Looking for additional revenue sources isn't a bad idea, but charging for
> premium access is likely to annoy the community to a degree that will make
> the great Visual Editor revolt look like some quiet and polite murmuring.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
Thanks for raising this Pete. I am interested in both the ethics and
practicalities of this change, as a long established unpaid volunteer
API user.

Sorry to raise the obvious, but while Geshuri is on the board, someone
found in court to have acted *illegally* on behalf of Google resulting
in damages of nearly half a billion dollars, yet still voted in
unanimously by the rest of the trustees as a jolly good chap (and
praised by Lila due to his worthiness), the idea of the board
discussing fundamental ethical changes that /may benefit Google/ to
the potential disadvantage of volunteers or charitable organisations
who will then no doubt be excluded from using a "1st class API,
reserved for rich global corporations" is abhorrent.

Let's wait and see if the community needs to play a game of
brinkmanship with a formal vote of no confidence in the WMF board of
trustees, before the current Chairman is seen to raise his hands and
admit there is a problem, or do anything about the WMF board's
blatantly broken or incompetently managed system of governance (it's 9
days now since my open letter, but there has yet to be a polite
acknowledgement of receipt from the Chair). If we end up forcing major
changes to the board through a form of democratic commercial
embarrassment, then this decision need to wait until there are
trustees in place that *we* have confidence in again, not just the
majority of current trustees.

Fae

On 16 January 2016 at 09:23, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of thinking:
>
> Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to the
> services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
> providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
> Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free
> access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
> line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation
> in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising strategies.
> The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
> strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
> -Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
What do they cost the foundation for their access? If they put up the costs significantly in way of bandwidth or servers or anything like that, it would be reasonable for them to support the extra costs.
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Zanni
Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 2:08 PM
To: Craig Franklin; Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Do you think?

I'm genuinely not sure.
I think that the difference in scale from what Google does with our data and the general developer/researcher is pretty big. One million times big.
I actually think that "over-the-top" players like Google do actually exploit free licensed materials like Wikipedia... I mean, their Knowledge Vault is probably 100 bigger than Wikidata, but they are not supposed to share it. It's an internal asset. And it's not matter of CC0 or CCBYSA:
they can keep it hidden.

There very, very few players who can exploit commons like this: do we need/have the right to address this? Is it a problem?

Aubrey

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
wrote:

> On 16 January 2016 at 19:23, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of
> thinking:
> >
> > Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> > Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access
> > to
> the
> > services and APIs,
>
>
> Brace yourselves...
>
>
> > expanding major donor and foundation fundraising, providing specific
> > services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia Foundation's growth.
> > The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free access to the
> > existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in line with
> > the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation in
> > the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising
> strategies.
> > The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
> > strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> > Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
>
>
> Looking for additional revenue sources isn't a bad idea, but charging
> for premium access is likely to annoy the community to a degree that
> will make the great Visual Editor revolt look like some quiet and polite murmuring.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11412 - Release Date: 01/16/16


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
I wonder how many ways there are to say "No"? Well, let's start with "no".
(My actual thoughts on this idea would probably get me put on moderation,
so I'll refrain.)

I helped build this project to be freely available to all reusers for all
purposes. The WMF's job should be to provide as many ways as possible to
make that reuse easy by anyone who wants to, whether that reuser be a
multibillion dollar tech company or a kid in sub-Saharan Africa. It is a
fundamental principle that no one, ever, should be charged to access,
reuse, whatever have you, Wikimedia content. Not even if they could afford
to pay.

Conversely, Google should never get a foot in the door to control Wikimedia
or Mediawiki. And anyone who's writing a check holds some cards. Big check,
lot of cards. If they want to donate to Wikimedia (and it'd be in their
interest to, they certainly make significant use of our content), great! If
they want to donate with strings attached, thanks but no thanks. We're
certainly not hurting for money. If they want to pull a recurring donation
if we do or don't do something, the answer should always be "Sorry to see
you go. Thanks for the donations in the past."

I am becoming more and more convinced that the formal vote of no confidence
Fae keeps putting forth is in fact necessary. And I don't exactly often
agree with Fae, nor am I the Wikipediocracy "Beat up Wikipedia and
Wikimedia at every opportunity" type. Rather, it's out of deep concern and
care for the project I've spent a lot of time helping to build, and a lot
of other people have too. I don't want to take that step, but this has got
to stop, here and now.

Todd

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> What do they cost the foundation for their access? If they put up the
> costs significantly in way of bandwidth or servers or anything like that,
> it would be reasonable for them to support the extra costs.
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Andrea Zanni
> Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 2:08 PM
> To: Craig Franklin; Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
>
> Do you think?
>
> I'm genuinely not sure.
> I think that the difference in scale from what Google does with our data
> and the general developer/researcher is pretty big. One million times big.
> I actually think that "over-the-top" players like Google do actually
> exploit free licensed materials like Wikipedia... I mean, their Knowledge
> Vault is probably 100 bigger than Wikidata, but they are not supposed to
> share it. It's an internal asset. And it's not matter of CC0 or CCBYSA:
> they can keep it hidden.
>
> There very, very few players who can exploit commons like this: do we
> need/have the right to address this? Is it a problem?
>
> Aubrey
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Craig Franklin <
> cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On 16 January 2016 at 19:23, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of
> > thinking:
> > >
> > > Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> > > Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access
> > > to
> > the
> > > services and APIs,
> >
> >
> > Brace yourselves...
> >
> >
> > > expanding major donor and foundation fundraising, providing specific
> > > services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia Foundation's growth.
> > > The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free access to the
> > > existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in line with
> > > the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation in
> > > the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising
> > strategies.
> > > The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
> > > strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> > > Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
> >
> >
> > Looking for additional revenue sources isn't a bad idea, but charging
> > for premium access is likely to annoy the community to a degree that
> > will make the great Visual Editor revolt look like some quiet and polite
> murmuring.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11412 - Release Date: 01/16/16
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
Pete Forsyth wrote:
>Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
>Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to
>the services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
>providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
>Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free
>access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
>line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation
>in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising
>strategies.

This reminds me of the Wikimedia update feed service:
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_update_feed_service>. The
Wikimedia Foundation basically allowed large search engines to access a
private faster and dedicated stream of recent changes to Wikimedia wikis
for a fee. While Google isn't mentioned on the Meta-Wiki page, I have a
vague memory that they were (and maybe still are) involved.

Somewhat related, there is also search.wikimedia.org:
<https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Search.wikimedia.org>. This service
was designed to give Apple a fast and dedicated stream for title prefix
searches. Apple's built-in Dictionary application has been the primary
consumer of this feed, though I believe it's open to anyone.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
I agree with Todd on most, possibly all points, but if Google want to finance faster access for their search engine, in way of hardware, software or development, with no strings attached, as long as it puts no-one at a disadvantage at the time or in future, then why not?
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Todd Allen
Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 6:02 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

I wonder how many ways there are to say "No"? Well, let's start with "no".
(My actual thoughts on this idea would probably get me put on moderation, so I'll refrain.)

I helped build this project to be freely available to all reusers for all purposes. The WMF's job should be to provide as many ways as possible to make that reuse easy by anyone who wants to, whether that reuser be a multibillion dollar tech company or a kid in sub-Saharan Africa. It is a fundamental principle that no one, ever, should be charged to access, reuse, whatever have you, Wikimedia content. Not even if they could afford to pay.

Conversely, Google should never get a foot in the door to control Wikimedia or Mediawiki. And anyone who's writing a check holds some cards. Big check, lot of cards. If they want to donate to Wikimedia (and it'd be in their interest to, they certainly make significant use of our content), great! If they want to donate with strings attached, thanks but no thanks. We're certainly not hurting for money. If they want to pull a recurring donation if we do or don't do something, the answer should always be "Sorry to see you go. Thanks for the donations in the past."

I am becoming more and more convinced that the formal vote of no confidence Fae keeps putting forth is in fact necessary. And I don't exactly often agree with Fae, nor am I the Wikipediocracy "Beat up Wikipedia and Wikimedia at every opportunity" type. Rather, it's out of deep concern and care for the project I've spent a lot of time helping to build, and a lot of other people have too. I don't want to take that step, but this has got to stop, here and now.

Todd

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> What do they cost the foundation for their access? If they put up the
> costs significantly in way of bandwidth or servers or anything like
> that, it would be reasonable for them to support the extra costs.
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Andrea Zanni
> Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 2:08 PM
> To: Craig Franklin; Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
>
> Do you think?
>
> I'm genuinely not sure.
> I think that the difference in scale from what Google does with our
> data and the general developer/researcher is pretty big. One million times big.
> I actually think that "over-the-top" players like Google do actually
> exploit free licensed materials like Wikipedia... I mean, their
> Knowledge Vault is probably 100 bigger than Wikidata, but they are not
> supposed to share it. It's an internal asset. And it's not matter of CC0 or CCBYSA:
> they can keep it hidden.
>
> There very, very few players who can exploit commons like this: do we
> need/have the right to address this? Is it a problem?
>
> Aubrey
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Craig Franklin <
> cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On 16 January 2016 at 19:23, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of
> > thinking:
> > >
> > > Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for
> > > the Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium
> > > access to
> > the
> > > services and APIs,
> >
> >
> > Brace yourselves...
> >
> >
> > > expanding major donor and foundation fundraising, providing
> > > specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia Foundation's growth.
> > > The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free access to the
> > > existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in line
> > > with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for
> > > innovation in the Foundation's activities, and other potential
> > > fundraising
> > strategies.
> > > The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these
> > > potential strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> > > Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
> >
> >
> > Looking for additional revenue sources isn't a bad idea, but
> > charging for premium access is likely to annoy the community to a
> > degree that will make the great Visual Editor revolt look like some
> > quiet and polite
> murmuring.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11412 - Release Date:
> 01/16/16
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11412 - Release Date: 01/16/16


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:09 PM MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> Pete Forsyth wrote:
> >Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> >Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to
> >the services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
> >providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
> >Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free
> >access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
> >line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation
> >in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising
> >strategies.
>
> This reminds me of the Wikimedia update feed service:
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_update_feed_service>. The
> Wikimedia Foundation basically allowed large search engines to access a
> private faster and dedicated stream of recent changes to Wikimedia wikis
> for a fee. While Google isn't mentioned on the Meta-Wiki page, I have a
> vague memory that they were (and maybe still are) involved.
>

I believe it was Yahoo. They were allowing us to use some of their servers
in Asia back in the day, and I believe they also paid for large-scale
access. There was even a special dump with the article start sections for
them.


> Somewhat related, there is also search.wikimedia.org:
> <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Search.wikimedia.org>. This service
> was designed to give Apple a fast and dedicated stream for title prefix
> searches. Apple's built-in Dictionary application has been the primary
> consumer of this feed, though I believe it's open to anyone.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
I agree, we shouldn't fee anything but a "reimburse" for the massive
usage of our hardware/networking resources would be ok.

Using over the tops' facilities would be great but it would also bring
to privacy concerns.

Finally if an over the top wants some further feature it can fund
scholarships, easy, transparent and without any side effect.

Vito


Il 16/01/2016 17:22, Peter Southwood ha scritto:
> I agree with Todd on most, possibly all points, but if Google want to finance faster access for their search engine, in way of hardware, software or development, with no strings attached, as long as it puts no-one at a disadvantage at the time or in future, then why not?
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Todd Allen
> Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 6:02 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
>
> I wonder how many ways there are to say "No"? Well, let's start with "no".
> (My actual thoughts on this idea would probably get me put on moderation, so I'll refrain.)
>
> I helped build this project to be freely available to all reusers for all purposes. The WMF's job should be to provide as many ways as possible to make that reuse easy by anyone who wants to, whether that reuser be a multibillion dollar tech company or a kid in sub-Saharan Africa. It is a fundamental principle that no one, ever, should be charged to access, reuse, whatever have you, Wikimedia content. Not even if they could afford to pay.
>
> Conversely, Google should never get a foot in the door to control Wikimedia or Mediawiki. And anyone who's writing a check holds some cards. Big check, lot of cards. If they want to donate to Wikimedia (and it'd be in their interest to, they certainly make significant use of our content), great! If they want to donate with strings attached, thanks but no thanks. We're certainly not hurting for money. If they want to pull a recurring donation if we do or don't do something, the answer should always be "Sorry to see you go. Thanks for the donations in the past."
>
> I am becoming more and more convinced that the formal vote of no confidence Fae keeps putting forth is in fact necessary. And I don't exactly often agree with Fae, nor am I the Wikipediocracy "Beat up Wikipedia and Wikimedia at every opportunity" type. Rather, it's out of deep concern and care for the project I've spent a lot of time helping to build, and a lot of other people have too. I don't want to take that step, but this has got to stop, here and now.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>> What do they cost the foundation for their access? If they put up the
>> costs significantly in way of bandwidth or servers or anything like
>> that, it would be reasonable for them to support the extra costs.
>> Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> Behalf Of Andrea Zanni
>> Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 2:08 PM
>> To: Craig Franklin; Wikimedia Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
>>
>> Do you think?
>>
>> I'm genuinely not sure.
>> I think that the difference in scale from what Google does with our
>> data and the general developer/researcher is pretty big. One million times big.
>> I actually think that "over-the-top" players like Google do actually
>> exploit free licensed materials like Wikipedia... I mean, their
>> Knowledge Vault is probably 100 bigger than Wikidata, but they are not
>> supposed to share it. It's an internal asset. And it's not matter of CC0 or CCBYSA:
>> they can keep it hidden.
>>
>> There very, very few players who can exploit commons like this: do we
>> need/have the right to address this? Is it a problem?
>>
>> Aubrey
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Craig Franklin <
>> cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16 January 2016 at 19:23, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of
>>> thinking:
>>>> Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for
>>>> the Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium
>>>> access to
>>> the
>>>> services and APIs,
>>>
>>> Brace yourselves...
>>>
>>>
>>>> expanding major donor and foundation fundraising, providing
>>>> specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia Foundation's growth.
>>>> The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free access to the
>>>> existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in line
>>>> with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for
>>>> innovation in the Foundation's activities, and other potential
>>>> fundraising
>>> strategies.
>>>> The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these
>>>> potential strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
>>>> Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
>>>
>>> Looking for additional revenue sources isn't a bad idea, but
>>> charging for premium access is likely to annoy the community to a
>>> degree that will make the great Visual Editor revolt look like some
>>> quiet and polite
>> murmuring.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Craig
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11412 - Release Date:
>> 01/16/16
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11412 - Release Date: 01/16/16
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
If anything the Wikimedia Foundation is about providing free access and
provide it to everyone who needs it on an equal basis. When this changes,
when people pay for superior service that is not available for everyone I
will really hate it and the people who had us deviate so much from where we
came from.

There is a difference for paying for a general service we do not provide
yet. There is a difference for paying for additional hardware, bandwidth
and services at cost. As long as the services are advertised openly I do
not mind. When a specialised service provides a general need, it should
become freely available.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 16 January 2016 at 10:23, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of thinking:
>
> Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to the
> services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
> providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
> Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free
> access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
> line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation
> in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising strategies.
> The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
> strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
> -Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
To share some context of the discussion the board had around this -- I
don't think the minutes give enough detail. APIs -- as we are freely and
rapidly creating them today are important, but are not quite at the core of
the issue we are facing.

Today Wikimedia is the largest internet channel for open free knowledge in
the world. But the trends are against us. We have to face them together. We
have to have the answers on how. The strategic discussion next week will
help guide us.

Over the last year we looked at the trends in Wikimedia traffic, internet
as a whole and user behaviors. It took a lot of research. When we started
the process we have not had solid internal data about unique visitors or
human vs. crawler usage on the site. For a top 10 website this is a big
issue; it hurts our ability to make smart decisions. We've learned a lot.

We found data that supports Leigh's point -- our permissive license
supports our core value, we are (I know I am) here for free knowledge. Yet
it allows others to use the content in ways that truncates, simplifies and
reduces it. More importantly this type of reuse separates our readers from
our site, disconnecting readers from our contributors (no edit buttons) and
ultimately reduces traffic. Is this a problem? I'd like to hear if people
on this list see it as such. And how we sustain contributions over time.

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

As these two trends increase without our intervention, our traffic decline
will accelerate, our ability to grow editors, content and cover costs will
decline as well.

The first question on the upcoming consultation next week will be squarely
on this. Please help us. API conversation is a consequence of this
challenge. If we were to build more for reuse: APIs are a good way to do
so. If we are to somehow incentivize users of SIri to come back to
Wikipedia, what would we need to do? Should we improve our site so more
people come to us directly as the first stop? How do we bring people into
our world vs. the world of commercial knowledge out there? How do we fund
this if the people moved to access our content through other interfaces (a
trend that has been accelerating)?

Those are the core questions we need to face. We will have to have some
uncomfortable, honest discussions as we test our hypothesis this year. The
conversation next week is a good start to prioritize those. Please join it.

Lila



On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter <osamadre@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> If we are concerned about Google taking unfair advantage of Wikipedia, one
> simple solution is to allow content donations with a non-commercial
> restriction. Right now, the concept of "free" include commercial use. An
> added bonus to this is that we would get a lot more institutional donations
> of content if we allowed an non-commercial option.
> My problem with allowing for paying for "premium access" is that we are
> allowing Google to have a priviledged position. There is no way around
> that.
> What is the impetus behind this proposal? Its not like we are lacking
> money. And limiting growth of the Foundation is not a bad thing... at
> least not to the community.
>
>
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > From: ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org
> > Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
> >
> > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freemiumly share
> > in the sum of all knowledge." XD
> >
> > Il 16/01/2016 10:23, Pete Forsyth ha scritto:
> > > I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of
> thinking:
> > >
> > > Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> > > Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access
> to the
> > > services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
> > > providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping
> free
> > > access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
> > > line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for
> innovation
> > > in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising
> strategies.
> > > The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
> > > strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> > > Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
> > > -Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Lila Tretikov
Wikimedia Foundation

*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
2016-01-16 19:21 GMT+01:00 Lila Tretikov <lila@wikimedia.org>:

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

Isn't that the point of using free licence (not NC, nor ND) ? I guess we do
so
to allow people/company/the world to reuse our content the way they want.

If we have problem attracting people to our plateform, then the problem is
not
about our API, it's about attractiveness and maybe we should focus on our
products.

I might be wrong, but what I understand when I read this discussion or the
board
minutes, is that we want to increase traffic because it's our best known way
to raise money (correlation with the endowement ?). This looks like a wrong
reason to not respect our values.

I do understand that such a discussion can reach the board, it's healthy to
list
lots of different solutions, that said I don't think it aligns with the
core values of
our movement.


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

Isn't that part of sharing the sum of human knowledge ?


> As these two trends increase without our intervention, our traffic decline
> will accelerate, our ability to grow editors, content and cover costs will
> decline as well.
>
> The first question on the upcoming consultation next week will be squarely
> on this. Please help us. API conversation is a consequence of this
> challenge. If we were to build more for reuse: APIs are a good way to do
> so. If we are to somehow incentivize users of SIri to come back to
> Wikipedia, what would we need to do? Should we improve our site so more
> people come to us directly as the first stop? How do we bring people into
> our world vs. the world of commercial knowledge out there? How do we fund
> this if the people moved to access our content through other interfaces (a
> trend that has been accelerating)?
>
> Those are the core questions we need to face. We will have to have some
> uncomfortable, honest discussions as we test our hypothesis this year. The
> conversation next week is a good start to prioritize those. Please join it.
>
> Lila
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter <osamadre@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If we are concerned about Google taking unfair advantage of Wikipedia,
> one
> > simple solution is to allow content donations with a non-commercial
> > restriction. Right now, the concept of "free" include commercial use. An
> > added bonus to this is that we would get a lot more institutional
> donations
> > of content if we allowed an non-commercial option.
> > My problem with allowing for paying for "premium access" is that we are
> > allowing Google to have a priviledged position. There is no way around
> > that.
> > What is the impetus behind this proposal? Its not like we are lacking
> > money. And limiting growth of the Foundation is not a bad thing... at
> > least not to the community.
> >
> >
> > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > From: ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org
> > > Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0100
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
> > >
> > > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freemiumly share
> > > in the sum of all knowledge." XD
> > >
> > > Il 16/01/2016 10:23, Pete Forsyth ha scritto:
> > > > I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of
> > thinking:
> > > >
> > > > Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> > > > Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access
> > to the
> > > > services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
> > > > providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping
> > free
> > > > access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth
> in
> > > > line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for
> > innovation
> > > > in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising
> > strategies.
> > > > The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
> > > > strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
> > > > Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
> > > > -Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lila Tretikov
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Pierre-Selim
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
2016-01-16 20:40 GMT+01:00 Pierre-Selim <pierre-selim@huard.info>:

> Isn't that the point of using free licence (not NC, nor ND) ? I guess we do
> so
> to allow people/company/the world to reuse our content the way they want.
>
> If we have problem attracting people to our plateform, then the problem is
> not
> about our API, it's about attractiveness and maybe we should focus on our
> products.
>
> I might be wrong, but what I understand when I read this discussion or the
> board
> minutes, is that we want to increase traffic because it's our best known way
> to raise money (correlation with the endowement ?). This looks like a wrong
> reason to not respect our values.

One of my main worries is that our content being reused somewhere else
means that we're losing our ability to engage new contributors, which
in the long runt could threaten the projects, at the same time as no
one else is stepping up to do our job because the traffic is still
going to our content – just not to us. There's a tradeoff between
readability and editability, especially on the small screen. Anyone
not concerned with editing will have a head start when it comes to
presenting the information in a less cluttered way, which makes it
easier to read and the experience more enjoyable.

//Johan Jönsson
--

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
Thank you for sharing this but, above all, to focus on digging real data.

IMHO we shouldn't forget our mission, so licenses must be as free as
possible. Turning into something "more closed" would definitely deplete
one of the most valuable source (the open source world) of volunteering
we have.

Crawlers' owner should definitely share our increasing expenses but any
kind of agreement with them should include ways to improve our userbase.
I'm wondering about an agreement with Google (or any other player) to
add an "edit" button to knowledge graph. Sort of a "knowledge vs. users"
agreement.

So, we definitely need a long term strategy which the Foundation will
pursue in *negotiating* with anyone who wants a big scale access to *our
resources* (while access to our knowledge will have no limits, as usual).

Vito

Il 16/01/2016 19:21, Lila Tretikov ha scritto:
> To share some context of the discussion the board had around this -- I
> don't think the minutes give enough detail. APIs -- as we are freely and
> rapidly creating them today are important, but are not quite at the core of
> the issue we are facing.
>
> Today Wikimedia is the largest internet channel for open free knowledge in
> the world. But the trends are against us. We have to face them together. We
> have to have the answers on how. The strategic discussion next week will
> help guide us.
>
> Over the last year we looked at the trends in Wikimedia traffic, internet
> as a whole and user behaviors. It took a lot of research. When we started
> the process we have not had solid internal data about unique visitors or
> human vs. crawler usage on the site. For a top 10 website this is a big
> issue; it hurts our ability to make smart decisions. We've learned a lot.
>
> We found data that supports Leigh's point -- our permissive license
> supports our core value, we are (I know I am) here for free knowledge. Yet
> it allows others to use the content in ways that truncates, simplifies and
> reduces it. More importantly this type of reuse separates our readers from
> our site, disconnecting readers from our contributors (no edit buttons) and
> ultimately reduces traffic. Is this a problem? I'd like to hear if people
> on this list see it as such. And how we sustain contributions over time.
>
> Meanwhile estimated half of our hosting is used to support crawlers that
> scan our content. This has an associated cost in infrastructure, power,
> servers, employees to support some well-funded organizations. The content
> is used for a variety of commercial purposes, sometimes having nothing to
> do with putting our contributor's work in front of more readers. Still, we
> can say this is tangentially supportive of our mission.
>
> As these two trends increase without our intervention, our traffic decline
> will accelerate, our ability to grow editors, content and cover costs will
> decline as well.
>
> The first question on the upcoming consultation next week will be squarely
> on this. Please help us. API conversation is a consequence of this
> challenge. If we were to build more for reuse: APIs are a good way to do
> so. If we are to somehow incentivize users of SIri to come back to
> Wikipedia, what would we need to do? Should we improve our site so more
> people come to us directly as the first stop? How do we bring people into
> our world vs. the world of commercial knowledge out there? How do we fund
> this if the people moved to access our content through other interfaces (a
> trend that has been accelerating)?
>
> Those are the core questions we need to face. We will have to have some
> uncomfortable, honest discussions as we test our hypothesis this year. The
> conversation next week is a good start to prioritize those. Please join it.
>
> Lila
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter <osamadre@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If we are concerned about Google taking unfair advantage of Wikipedia, one
>> simple solution is to allow content donations with a non-commercial
>> restriction. Right now, the concept of "free" include commercial use. An
>> added bonus to this is that we would get a lot more institutional donations
>> of content if we allowed an non-commercial option.
>> My problem with allowing for paying for "premium access" is that we are
>> allowing Google to have a priviledged position. There is no way around
>> that.
>> What is the impetus behind this proposal? Its not like we are lacking
>> money. And limiting growth of the Foundation is not a bad thing... at
>> least not to the community.
>>
>>
>>> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> From: ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org
>>> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0100
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
>>>
>>> "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freemiumly share
>>> in the sum of all knowledge." XD
>>>
>>> Il 16/01/2016 10:23, Pete Forsyth ha scritto:
>>>> I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of
>> thinking:
>>>> Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
>>>> Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access
>> to the
>>>> services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
>>>> providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
>>>> Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping
>> free
>>>> access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
>>>> line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for
>> innovation
>>>> in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising
>> strategies.
>>>> The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
>>>> strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
>>>> Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
>>>> -Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
I think if anyone were to pay, they should all pay at the same rate,
according to their usage.

Moreover, those whose usage is minimal should not pay at all. You might
have a threshold – say, if it's $X or less, no need to pay a dime.

So the Indian or African start-up would have access for free, while the
search giants might pay what is, from the WMF perspective, a considerable
sum (but peanuts for them).

What is vitally important though is that no one should be able to buy a
better service just because they are rich. That would just slant the
playing field in favour of the existing giants and suppress competition.

That would be an evil thing to do.

But if the above caveats are observed, it might be a good idea.

Andreas

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:

> > Looking for additional revenue sources isn't a bad idea, but charging for
> > premium access is likely to annoy the community to a degree that will
> make
> > the great Visual Editor revolt look like some quiet and polite murmuring.
>
> That's definitely a conversation worth having, as it helps us understand
> what we want to do, and who we want to be.
>
> Do we want to charge for knowledge? Of course not. But do we want to be
> able to introduce cool new tools for everyone faster, because e.g. Google
> is willing to pay for their development if they can use it for some time
> earlier as "premium"? I don't know yet. Let's talk.
>
> I don't intuitively object to Google paying for some additional features,
> they ride on the back of our content in many situations, and we don't even
> know how many people see it (content is cached).
>
> I do, however, believe that if we ever decide to do this, with the
> community's backing, any charging should resemble grants a bit (there
> should be a clear time horizon when what we are able to develop as "
> premium" becomes standard and free; if it is also useful for the general
> public).
>
> Best,
>
> Dj
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs [ In reply to ]
Folks (WMF board, and those closely related), do we really have to hold a
vote of no confidence to get your attention? Do you have any doubt that
it'd pass?

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

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Vituzzu <vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for sharing this but, above all, to focus on digging real data.
>
> IMHO we shouldn't forget our mission, so licenses must be as free as
> possible. Turning into something "more closed" would definitely deplete one
> of the most valuable source (the open source world) of volunteering we have.
>
> Crawlers' owner should definitely share our increasing expenses but any
> kind of agreement with them should include ways to improve our userbase.
> I'm wondering about an agreement with Google (or any other player) to add
> an "edit" button to knowledge graph. Sort of a "knowledge vs. users"
> agreement.
>
> So, we definitely need a long term strategy which the Foundation will
> pursue in *negotiating* with anyone who wants a big scale access to *our
> resources* (while access to our knowledge will have no limits, as usual).
>
> Vito
>
>
> Il 16/01/2016 19:21, Lila Tretikov ha scritto:
>
>> To share some context of the discussion the board had around this -- I
>> don't think the minutes give enough detail. APIs -- as we are freely and
>> rapidly creating them today are important, but are not quite at the core
>> of
>> the issue we are facing.
>>
>> Today Wikimedia is the largest internet channel for open free knowledge in
>> the world. But the trends are against us. We have to face them together.
>> We
>> have to have the answers on how. The strategic discussion next week will
>> help guide us.
>>
>> Over the last year we looked at the trends in Wikimedia traffic, internet
>> as a whole and user behaviors. It took a lot of research. When we started
>> the process we have not had solid internal data about unique visitors or
>> human vs. crawler usage on the site. For a top 10 website this is a big
>> issue; it hurts our ability to make smart decisions. We've learned a lot.
>>
>> We found data that supports Leigh's point -- our permissive license
>> supports our core value, we are (I know I am) here for free knowledge. Yet
>> it allows others to use the content in ways that truncates, simplifies and
>> reduces it. More importantly this type of reuse separates our readers from
>> our site, disconnecting readers from our contributors (no edit buttons)
>> and
>> ultimately reduces traffic. Is this a problem? I'd like to hear if people
>> on this list see it as such. And how we sustain contributions over time.
>>
>> Meanwhile estimated half of our hosting is used to support crawlers that
>> scan our content. This has an associated cost in infrastructure, power,
>> servers, employees to support some well-funded organizations. The content
>> is used for a variety of commercial purposes, sometimes having nothing to
>> do with putting our contributor's work in front of more readers. Still, we
>> can say this is tangentially supportive of our mission.
>>
>> As these two trends increase without our intervention, our traffic decline
>> will accelerate, our ability to grow editors, content and cover costs will
>> decline as well.
>>
>> The first question on the upcoming consultation next week will be squarely
>> on this. Please help us. API conversation is a consequence of this
>> challenge. If we were to build more for reuse: APIs are a good way to do
>> so. If we are to somehow incentivize users of SIri to come back to
>> Wikipedia, what would we need to do? Should we improve our site so more
>> people come to us directly as the first stop? How do we bring people into
>> our world vs. the world of commercial knowledge out there? How do we fund
>> this if the people moved to access our content through other interfaces (a
>> trend that has been accelerating)?
>>
>> Those are the core questions we need to face. We will have to have some
>> uncomfortable, honest discussions as we test our hypothesis this year. The
>> conversation next week is a good start to prioritize those. Please join
>> it.
>>
>> Lila
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter <osamadre@hotmail.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> If we are concerned about Google taking unfair advantage of Wikipedia, one
>>> simple solution is to allow content donations with a non-commercial
>>> restriction. Right now, the concept of "free" include commercial use. An
>>> added bonus to this is that we would get a lot more institutional
>>> donations
>>> of content if we allowed an non-commercial option.
>>> My problem with allowing for paying for "premium access" is that we are
>>> allowing Google to have a priviledged position. There is no way around
>>> that.
>>> What is the impetus behind this proposal? Its not like we are lacking
>>> money. And limiting growth of the Foundation is not a bad thing... at
>>> least not to the community.
>>>
>>>
>>> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> From: ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org
>>>> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0100
>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
>>>>
>>>> "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freemiumly share
>>>> in the sum of all knowledge." XD
>>>>
>>>> Il 16/01/2016 10:23, Pete Forsyth ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of
>>>>>
>>>> thinking:
>>>
>>>> Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
>>>>> Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access
>>>>>
>>>> to the
>>>
>>>> services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
>>>>> providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia
>>>>> Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping
>>>>>
>>>> free
>>>
>>>> access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in
>>>>> line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for
>>>>>
>>>> innovation
>>>
>>>> in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising
>>>>>
>>>> strategies.
>>>
>>>> The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential
>>>>> strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016.
>>>>> Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07
>>>>> -Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>>
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>
>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2  View All