Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the Netherlands; informing the donors

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

Hey

Another minor correction with a large impact. The first 60 euro, or 1% of your 
gross income,  (crude translation of Drempelinkomen, but it will do for the 
sake of the argument), whichever is higher, does not count as deductible...

Realistically this means that for people donating any money, it usually comes 
down to the fact that the first several hundred Euro’s donated each year 
(cumulatively) are NOT tax deductible. An exception would be a “periodical” 
gift which is documented.

But overall: its complex and the amount you need to donate to charities is 
relatively high, and most people cannot take advantage of it because of this 
reason. 

I would guess that the ANBI status only really affects large donors… but it 
never hurts to advertise our ANBI status :) (personal opinion)

Jan-Bart
 
PS: http://www.belastingdienst.nl/rekenhulpen/giften/ 
 (only seems to be available 
in dutch)

> On 07 Dec 2014, at 11:23, Lodewijk  wrote:
> 
> Minor correction: this system in the Netherlands works the other way
> around: donors can get back a part of their donation through their tax
> reduction - it is not that the charity gets a bonus.
> 
> Interestingly, the Wikimedia Foundation has obtained this status (ANBI) in
> the Netherlands at the urging of the chapter several years ago (2010/2011).
> However, for some reason the WMF chooses not to advertize this (not so
> obvious) fact on the donation home page; which means that the donors are
> unaware that they can donate and get this reduction of their taxes (indeed
> up to 50% of the donation amount!). This is mindboggling to me - it should
> be an easy fix.
> 
> Lodewijk
> 
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hoi,
>> A similar possibility is in existence in the Netherlands... National
>> charities can easily get such a status. It is possible for international
>> organisations but it is more difficult..
>> 
>> In order to optimise fundraisers it is extremely relevant that we optimise
>> it for our donors. That makes it very much in need of local efforts.
>> 
>> As it is we lose 50% of the giftst of our donors in the Netherlands to the
>> taxman.
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>> 
>> On 4 December 2014 at 22:10, Andy Mabbett 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I've split this from a more general thread, for convenience...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 3 December 2014 at 01:16, Megan Hernandez 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Starting today, banners are being shown to 100% of anonymous readers on
 English Wikipedia in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
>>> 
>>> How much money do we expect to raise (or did we last year), from the
>>> UK? How much of the money raised from the UK will attract "Gift
>>> Aid"[*] tax releif?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [* Gift AId is a UK scheme where the government gives, to a charity,
>>> tax paid by a  donor. For every £80 such a donor gives, the charty
>>> would receive £100]
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Andy Mabbett
>>> @pigsonthewing
>>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the Netherlands; informing the donors

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
At the time I learned that it is possible to have an EC wide status. While
local tax laws differ, it only takes one effort to have such an EC status.
Nothing was done at the time, that was/is an annoyance.

My hope is that this status will be established so that our donors can
benefit according to their local laws.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 8 December 2014 at 09:14, Jan-Bart de Vreede 
wrote:

> Hey
>
> Another minor correction with a large impact. The first 60 euro, or 1% of
> your gross income,  (crude translation of Drempelinkomen, but it will do
> for the sake of the argument), whichever is higher, does not count as
> deductible...
>
> Realistically this means that for people donating any money, it usually
> comes down to the fact that the first several hundred Euro’s donated each
> year (cumulatively) are NOT tax deductible. An exception would be a
> “periodical” gift which is documented.
>
> But overall: its complex and the amount you need to donate to charities is
> relatively high, and most people cannot take advantage of it because of
> this reason.
>
> I would guess that the ANBI status only really affects large donors… but
> it never hurts to advertise our ANBI status :) (personal opinion)
>
> Jan-Bart
>
> PS: http://www.belastingdienst.nl/rekenhulpen/giften/ <
> http://www.belastingdienst.nl/rekenhulpen/giften/> (only seems to be
> available in dutch)
>
> > On 07 Dec 2014, at 11:23, Lodewijk  wrote:
> >
> > Minor correction: this system in the Netherlands works the other way
> > around: donors can get back a part of their donation through their tax
> > reduction - it is not that the charity gets a bonus.
> >
> > Interestingly, the Wikimedia Foundation has obtained this status (ANBI)
> in
> > the Netherlands at the urging of the chapter several years ago
> (2010/2011).
> > However, for some reason the WMF chooses not to advertize this (not so
> > obvious) fact on the donation home page; which means that the donors are
> > unaware that they can donate and get this reduction of their taxes
> (indeed
> > up to 50% of the donation amount!). This is mindboggling to me - it
> should
> > be an easy fix.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> A similar possibility is in existence in the Netherlands... National
> >> charities can easily get such a status. It is possible for international
> >> organisations but it is more difficult..
> >>
> >> In order to optimise fundraisers it is extremely relevant that we
> optimise
> >> it for our donors. That makes it very much in need of local efforts.
> >>
> >> As it is we lose 50% of the giftst of our donors in the Netherlands to
> the
> >> taxman.
> >> Thanks,
> >> GerardM
> >>
> >> On 4 December 2014 at 22:10, Andy Mabbett 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've split this from a more general thread, for convenience...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 3 December 2014 at 01:16, Megan Hernandez  >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Starting today, banners are being shown to 100% of anonymous readers
> on
>  English Wikipedia in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
> >>>
> >>> How much money do we expect to raise (or did we last year), from the
> >>> UK? How much of the money raised from the UK will attract "Gift
> >>> Aid"[*] tax releif?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [* Gift AId is a UK scheme where the government gives, to a charity,
> >>> tax paid by a  donor. For every £80 such a donor gives, the charty
> >>> would receive £100]
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Andy Mabbett
> >>> @pigsonthewing
> >>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> 
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
__

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the Netherlands; informing the donors

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Gerard Meijssen, 07/12/2014 13:11:

At the time I learned that there is the possibility of an European tax
status. I do remember that it took several years of financial statements.
This is something we can easily provide


We already do: that's what local chapters are for. WMF is not based in 
EU and requiring EU seat is not unlawful. That said, if WMF wants to 
apply for fiscal benefits in more EU countries, I'm sure many of us can 
help pro bono.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the UK

[Russavia]

Lisa,

I posted a link to the WMF Board discussion to this list on 6 December,
it's no problem if you missed it, here it is again:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Fundraising

I quote from that:

"The [UK Fund for Charities channels gifts to validated non-UK based
charities. We were able to use their service this year for large
Wikimania-related donations. They charge 1% for large gifts, making this an
effective way to receive gift aid. However this is not a great solution for
individual donors: for gifts under £100, they charge up to 20%, consuming
most of the gift aid. –SJ talk  00:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)"

Given the nature of fundraising drives by the WMF (e.g banners) most of the
donations from the UK would surely come from the "under £100" category, and
many of these donations would likely be made because of the gift aid that
is no longer able to be collected by WMUK or the WMF.

Hopefully you can give us some clear answers to the issues which have been
raised on both the Board noticeboard and this list; myself and others feel
we are still none the wiser as to the reality.

Cheers

Russavia



On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Lisa Gruwell  wrote:

> Hi Russavia-
>
> I haven't seen the specific comment from SJ that you are referencing, but
> I am guessing that he is referring to the Gift Aid percentage match, which
> used to be 20% and is now 25%.  The 1% I mentioned is the processing fee
> WMF pays to the U.K. Fund for Charities for processing our donations.  We
> most often see large donors asking about Gift Aid and that is why we set up
> the account, but it is not exclusively for large donations.  We refer
> anyone who is wishing to add Gift Aid to their donation to our account with
> the U.K. Fund for Charities.
>
> When I said "in country", I meant anyone wishing to give to the chapter,
> instead of WMF.  Those donations stay with the chapter and do not come back
> to WMF.  We should be able to provide some numbers around this when our
> donor services team comes up for air in January.
>
> Thank you,
> Lisa
>
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Russavia 
> wrote:
>
>> Lisa
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Lisa Gruwell 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 2)  When a U.K. donor is looking to add Gift Aid to their donation, we
>> > process the donation through our account with the U.K. Fund for
>> Charities,
>> > which charges 1% for this service and returns the donor data to WMF.
>> When
>> > a donor is looking to donate in country, we direct them to the chapter.
>>
>> Can you please confirm whether you are talking about large donors, or
>> the every day type donors who keep Wikipedia free by clicking on the
>> banners. The reason this is needed is that it contradicts what Sj has
>> stated on the Board noticeboard, where a figure of 20% was mentioned
>> for the nickel and dime donors (which come about by way of the
>> banners, etc).
>>
>> Can you also give some further information on how many of these "in
>> country" donors the WMF has sent WMUK's way? And what $/£ amount would
>> we be talking about here? And are funds from these "in country" donors
>> funnelled back to the WMF?
>>
>> Apologies if this is covered elsewhere.
>>
>> Russavia
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the UK

[Lisa Gruwell]

Hi Russavia-

Thanks for clarification. There is a lot of room for confusion here and I
sure I have not been as clear when talking about this as I needed to be.
Here are the details: The pricing structure is based on cumulative
donations.  We paid 20% on the first £100 in donations (which was covered
with our very first donation), 10% on the next £9899, and 1% on every
donation after that – which is the fee assessed on any donation made during
this December campaign that requests Gift Aid.  We will share the totals
after we receive our quarterly statement toward the end of February.  Sorry
for the confusion.

Thank you,
Lisa

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Russavia 
wrote:

> Lisa,
>
> I posted a link to the WMF Board discussion to this list on 6 December,
> it's no problem if you missed it, here it is again:
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Fundraising
>
> I quote from that:
>
> "The [UK Fund for Charities channels gifts to validated non-UK based
> charities. We were able to use their service this year for large
> Wikimania-related donations. They charge 1% for large gifts, making this an
> effective way to receive gift aid. However this is not a great solution for
> individual donors: for gifts under £100, they charge up to 20%, consuming
> most of the gift aid. –SJ talk  00:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)"
>
> Given the nature of fundraising drives by the WMF (e.g banners) most of
> the donations from the UK would surely come from the "under £100" category,
> and many of these donations would likely be made because of the gift aid
> that is no longer able to be collected by WMUK or the WMF.
>
> Hopefully you can give us some clear answers to the issues which have been
> raised on both the Board noticeboard and this list; myself and others feel
> we are still none the wiser as to the reality.
>
> Cheers
>
> Russavia
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Lisa Gruwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Russavia-
>>
>> I haven't seen the specific comment from SJ that you are referencing, but
>> I am guessing that he is referring to the Gift Aid percentage match, which
>> used to be 20% and is now 25%.  The 1% I mentioned is the processing fee
>> WMF pays to the U.K. Fund for Charities for processing our donations.  We
>> most often see large donors asking about Gift Aid and that is why we set up
>> the account, but it is not exclusively for large donations.  We refer
>> anyone who is wishing to add Gift Aid to their donation to our account with
>> the U.K. Fund for Charities.
>>
>> When I said "in country", I meant anyone wishing to give to the chapter,
>> instead of WMF.  Those donations stay with the chapter and do not come back
>> to WMF.  We should be able to provide some numbers around this when our
>> donor services team comes up for air in January.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Lisa
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Russavia 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lisa
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Lisa Gruwell 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 2)  When a U.K. donor is looking to add Gift Aid to their donation, we
>>> > process the donation through our account with the U.K. Fund for
>>> Charities,
>>> > which charges 1% for this service and returns the donor data to WMF.
>>> When
>>> > a donor is looking to donate in country, we direct them to the chapter.
>>>
>>> Can you please confirm whether you are talking about large donors, or
>>> the every day type donors who keep Wikipedia free by clicking on the
>>> banners. The reason this is needed is that it contradicts what Sj has
>>> stated on the Board noticeboard, where a figure of 20% was mentioned
>>> for the nickel and dime donors (which come about by way of the
>>> banners, etc).
>>>
>>> Can you also give some further information on how many of these "in
>>> country" donors the WMF has sent WMUK's way? And what $/£ amount would
>>> we be talking about here? And are funds from these "in country" donors
>>> funnelled back to the WMF?
>>>
>>> Apologies if this is covered elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Russavia
>>>
>>
>>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC

[Adam Baso]

Hi there, just wanted to touch on the autoredirection stuff. The thing
mentioned on autoredirection is an enhancement for accesses to
m.wikipedia.org/ webroot (not articles) for Wikipedia Zero users. As
before, non-Wikipedia Zero users accessing m.wikipedia.org/ webroot
continue to get redirected to en.m.wikipedia.org.

It seems thus far that the enhancement for Wikipedia Zero users isn't
causing harm, and our thinking is that if that holds, we should examine
some application of the approach to m.wikipedia.org/ non-Wikipedia
Zero-sourced access as well.

As an extension of this thinking, looking into alternative placement of
"Read in another language" or even a language shortlist (e.g., an API
endpoint looks at Accept-Language and the top 3 pertinent languages get
shimmed in) above the fold pertinent for the given user, taking into
account JavaScript support level, may be worthwhile.

-Adam




On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Hi.
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:27 AM, C. Scott Ananian 
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, C. Scott Ananian <
> canan...@wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >> 1) Is the rise in global south page views specifically to *enwiki*, or
> > >> is it to local wikis?
> > > Not actually an either/or.  The answer seems to me to be "yes", i.e.
> all
> > > wikis -- that is, all projects, all languages.
> >
> > It may *seem to you* to be "yes", but the data indicates that the
> > answer differs, depending where you look.  For example, the data
> > clearly indicates that the stunning rise in Iran is almost entirely
> > due to enwiki.  enwiki gains over 80 million page views, fawiki gains
> > only 10 million.  See
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics for a
> > convincing graph.
> >
> > I think it's important that we determine the actual answers to these
> > questions, instead of trusting our instincts.
> >
>
> I definitely agree.  I had misread your question to mean "is the rise
> computed across all wikis", which is indeed not what you were asking.  I
> apologize for the irrelevant answer.
>
>
> >  > Some definitely do.  Another major factor, mentioned today, is that in
> > some
> > > countries, mobile devices just don't come with good local languages
> > > support, and people are putting up with that and using what the device
> > does
> > > give them, which are generally the major, colonial languages.
> >
> > Hm, the word "colonial" bothers me here.  I know you mean
> > "historically colonial", but in the modern world English is also a
> > trade language, not just a formerly-colonial language.  Much access to
> > enwiki is due to its trade-language status.
> >
>
> Certainly, there are very strong economic incentives to use English these
> days, and additionally other incentives, such as prestige real and
> imagined, still operating (and those, themselves, are still ripples of
> colonialism), but I did not mean 'colonial' here particularly strongly.  I
> could have written "European", I suppose, except there are many languages
> in Europe, and only a handful have been colonial languages.  But the term
> is not important here, I think.
>
>
> > I feel strongly that we have a moral obligation to offer good local
> > language support, but I also feel that we shouldn't label and dismiss
> > readers who want to learn/practice/find information in a trade
> > language. (This is one of the reasons I'm a fan of simplewiki, but
> > that's a whole 'nuther discussion.)
> >
>
> I don't see that I (or anyone) did dismiss that.  In terms of our strategic
> goals of Reach and Participation, we are agnostic about which languages
> people contribute in, or consume in.  In terms of our strategic goal of
> Diversity however, we do want to work towards adequate offerings in all
> languages in which people are actually seeking to consume knowledge.
>
>
> >  On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Salvador A 
> > wrote:
> > > I was reading the presentation on metrics and the point about Mexico's
> > > decreasing of views on Wikipedia called my attention.
> >
> > I dug into the numbers a little more; see the graphs at
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics
> >
> > It's a bit confusing.  At this moment I'm inclined to say that the
> > computation of "decliners" was in some way erroneous; neither the page
> > views for Mexico nor the overall pageviews for eswiki seem to support
> > the large annual declines reported.
> >
> > On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cscott/2014_December_metrics I
> > compute an annual decline for Mexico of 12.4% (compared to 23.2%
> > reported at the metrics meeting), which compares to an eswiki annual
> > decline of 4.8% (excludings bots and spiders).
> >
> > So Mexico is indeed concerning -- it's declining at three times the
> > eswiki rate.  But eswiki as a whole seems like it ought to also be a
> > concern.  And I'd like to understand why I can

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the UK

[Russavia]

Lisa,

Thanks for your reply and clarification.

When one clicks on the fundraising banner from the UK, they get taken
to this site.[1] As you can see there is no prominent link about gift
aid on that page. There is, however, a link at the bottom under "Tax
deductibility information" which takes you here.[2]

It will certainly be interesting to see the figures in February which
you said you'd provide, so that we can see for ourselves just how the
figures from the UK compare to previous years when the gift aid was
obviously more prominent (from what I am lead to understand).

Another interesting thing I noticed. When you go the landing page for
Australia,[3] I see the option there to pay via BPay.[4] And sure
enough, the Wikimedia Foundation has a BPay biller code.[5] Most
Australians would be familiar with BPay, so it's a great feature to
have. But, upon looking at their FAQs[6] it states:

"Can an overseas business become a BPAY biller?

Unfortunately, if your business is based overseas you can’t become a
BPAY biller. BPAY is only available for businesses in Australia."

How exactly is the WMF utilising BPay here in Australia? It's not
registered in Australia.[7]

More info on that would be awesome. Sorry if it's been answered before.

Cheers,

Russavia

[1] 
https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPage&country=GB&uselang=en&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_source=donate&utm_campaign=C13_en.wikipedia.org
[2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Tax_Deductibility/en#United_Kingdom
[3] 
https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPage&country=AU&uselang=en&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_source=donate&utm_campaign=C13_en.wikipedia.org
[4] http://www.bpay.com.au/
[5] 
http://www.bpay.com.au/Personal/Find-Biller-Codes-or-Financial-Institutions.aspx?find=373456
[6] 
http://www.bpay.com.au/Business/Small-Medium-Business/Help/BPAY-Services-FAQs.aspx#faq-question-790
[7] http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByNameAll.aspx?SearchText=wikimedia


On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Lisa Gruwell  wrote:
>
> Hi Russavia-
>
> Thanks for clarification. There is a lot of room for confusion here and I 
> sure I have not been as clear when talking about this as I needed to be.  
> Here are the details: The pricing structure is based on cumulative donations. 
>  We paid 20% on the first £100 in donations (which was covered with our very 
> first donation), 10% on the next £9899, and 1% on every donation after that – 
> which is the fee assessed on any donation made during this December campaign 
> that requests Gift Aid.  We will share the totals after we receive our 
> quarterly statement toward the end of February.  Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Thank you,
> Lisa

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the UK

[Andy Mabbett]

On 4 December 2014 at 21:10, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> How much money do we expect to raise (or did we last year), from the
> UK? How much of the money raised from the UK will attract "Gift
> Aid"[*] tax releif?

Unless I've missed it these questions have not yet been answered.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[MZMcBride]

Mike Godwin wrote:
>Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to
>justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does.
>But we don't have to let their propagandists define us.

I think we should be explicit here: in exchange for zero-rated access to
Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the
page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated
telecommunications company. So much for "we'll never run advertising," eh.

I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this
thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do
wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only
available in "developing countries" (which we somehow make more pejorative
by using the term "Global South")? When will Wikipedia Zero be available
in the United States or in the United Kingdom?

>What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
>higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
>increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
>increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
>this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
>world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.

Yeah... both Facebook and Google are trying to sell this same argument:
they're in it to bring Internet to the world, nothing sinister about that!
Of course, the reality is far different: both companies are primarily
interested in mining and selling user data to advertisers. Strange
bedfellows, to be sure.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mike Godwin]

If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for
him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to
Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that
Wikipedia doesn't force me to see.

I don't actually see the Wikipedia banner ads, so I can't understand
how MZ has conflated his experience with Wikipedia -- where I guess he
does not log in -- with his experience of PBS, whose sponsorship
announcements can't be avoided even if you are a donor.

I do follow the debate about PBS from time to time, but MZ's comments
haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.


--Mike



On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>>Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to
>>justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does.
>>But we don't have to let their propagandists define us.
>
> I think we should be explicit here: in exchange for zero-rated access to
> Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the
> page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated
> telecommunications company. So much for "we'll never run advertising," eh.
>
> I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this
> thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do
> wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only
> available in "developing countries" (which we somehow make more pejorative
> by using the term "Global South")? When will Wikipedia Zero be available
> in the United States or in the United Kingdom?
>
>>What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
>>higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
>>increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
>>increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
>>this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
>>world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.
>
> Yeah... both Facebook and Google are trying to sell this same argument:
> they're in it to bring Internet to the world, nothing sinister about that!
> Of course, the reality is far different: both companies are primarily
> interested in mining and selling user data to advertisers. Strange
> bedfellows, to be sure.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[MZMcBride]

Mike Godwin wrote:
>If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for
>him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to
>Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that
>Wikipedia doesn't force me to see.
>
>I don't actually see the Wikipedia banner ads, so I can't understand
>how MZ has conflated his experience with Wikipedia -- where I guess he
>does not log in -- with his experience of PBS, whose sponsorship
>announcements can't be avoided even if you are a donor.
>
>I do follow the debate about PBS from time to time, but MZ's comments
>haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.

I can't say I watch PBS very much, but I do occasionally listen to NPR.
And to borrow a phrase from the West Coast, I find those advertisements
hella annoying and I certainly don't think we should emulate them.

Like you, I'm a Wikimedian, so my focus is naturally on the intersection
between issues and Wikimedia. I wish PBS and NPR and other fine
organizations did not have those awful sponsored interruptions. Other
sites and forums have other needs and other priorities, but perhaps we can
stick to focusing on Wikipedia Zero in this thread? :-)

I found Phoebe's summary of the fundraising banners thread supremely
useful. I'm hoping that someone can create a similar summary for Meta-Wiki
about Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality (there are blog posts on
blog.wikimedia.org to maybe pull from too).

My personal view at the moment still somewhat strongly leans toward "it's
complicated," which I think, as David suggested, we may simply want
to embrace as a perfectly cromulent answer. But I do take issue, perhaps
not alone, with what I view as language subversion and manipulation, such
as trying to redefine what constitutes advertising or net neutrality. I
think there's great beauty in truth and honesty. And I think that's part
of Wikimedia's values.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mike Godwin]

MZMcBride  wrote:

> I can't say I watch PBS very much, but I do occasionally listen to NPR.
> And to borrow a phrase from the West Coast, I find those advertisements
> hella annoying and I certainly don't think we should emulate them.

If you have an alternative funding plan for NPR, you should publish it.

>But I do take issue, perhaps
> not alone, with what I view as language subversion and manipulation, such
> as trying to redefine what constitutes advertising or net neutrality. I
> think there's great beauty in truth and honesty. And I think that's part
> of Wikimedia's values.

I take issue with being accused of "language subversion and
manipulation." I invite you here not to accuse me of it any further.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising in the UK

[Charles Gregory]

Russavia (and everyone),

I've asked about, and from I can find the WMF has contracted out collection
of BPay payments to a third party merchant (an Australian business).  This
has been the case since the first fundraiser that WMAU was not involved in
payment processing (2011 I think).

Regards,

Charles / User:Chuq
Wikimedia Australia


On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Russavia 
wrote:

> Lisa,
>
> Thanks for your reply and clarification.
>
> When one clicks on the fundraising banner from the UK, they get taken
> to this site.[1] As you can see there is no prominent link about gift
> aid on that page. There is, however, a link at the bottom under "Tax
> deductibility information" which takes you here.[2]
>
> It will certainly be interesting to see the figures in February which
> you said you'd provide, so that we can see for ourselves just how the
> figures from the UK compare to previous years when the gift aid was
> obviously more prominent (from what I am lead to understand).
>
> Another interesting thing I noticed. When you go the landing page for
> Australia,[3] I see the option there to pay via BPay.[4] And sure
> enough, the Wikimedia Foundation has a BPay biller code.[5] Most
> Australians would be familiar with BPay, so it's a great feature to
> have. But, upon looking at their FAQs[6] it states:
>
> "Can an overseas business become a BPAY biller?
>
> Unfortunately, if your business is based overseas you can’t become a
> BPAY biller. BPAY is only available for businesses in Australia."
>
> How exactly is the WMF utilising BPay here in Australia? It's not
> registered in Australia.[7]
>
> More info on that would be awesome. Sorry if it's been answered before.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
>
> [1]
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPage&country=GB&uselang=en&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_source=donate&utm_campaign=C13_en.wikipedia.org
> [2]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Tax_Deductibility/en#United_Kingdom
> [3]
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPage&country=AU&uselang=en&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_source=donate&utm_campaign=C13_en.wikipedia.org
> [4] http://www.bpay.com.au/
> [5]
> http://www.bpay.com.au/Personal/Find-Biller-Codes-or-Financial-Institutions.aspx?find=373456
> [6]
> http://www.bpay.com.au/Business/Small-Medium-Business/Help/BPAY-Services-FAQs.aspx#faq-question-790
> [7] http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByNameAll.aspx?SearchText=wikimedia
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Lisa Gruwell 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Russavia-
> >
> > Thanks for clarification. There is a lot of room for confusion here and
> I sure I have not been as clear when talking about this as I needed to be.
> Here are the details: The pricing structure is based on cumulative
> donations.  We paid 20% on the first £100 in donations (which was covered
> with our very first donation), 10% on the next £9899, and 1% on every
> donation after that – which is the fee assessed on any donation made during
> this December campaign that requests Gift Aid.  We will share the totals
> after we receive our quarterly statement toward the end of February.  Sorry
> for the confusion.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Lisa
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[John Mark Vandenberg]

Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument, as
the TV network model is itself a convincing argument effectively used
by the pro-net-neutrality people as a worst case outcome of eroding
net neutrality - most people agree we need to avoid the Internet
descending to a TV network model, where distribution costs must be
paid by someone before the content is put onto the network.  NPR/radio
might be a better comparison, but again there the government grants
spectrum licenses, and it still differs from 'the Internet' as content
can't be pulled adhoc by the listener; the content is pushed over
physically limited resources (and adding channels requires engineering
advances / spectrum reorganisation, which is not as simple as laying
extra cables), and someone else decides what is pushed out, and when.

It seems Wikipedia Zero has 'sponsorship statements' because that was
a requirement imposed by these telcos in exchange for getting free
access to their networks to distributing Wikipedia Zero content and
Wikimedia Foundation decided it is an acceptable requirement, so it
was added to the contracts with these organisations.

Many worry that there are a few slippery slopes and conundrums around
our current position.  Two that concern me are..

Do we want all ISPs/telco's putting a 'sponsorship statement' on top
of Wikipedia content, as their requirement for allowing Wikipedia
content to be sent freely across their network to the reader?  In
Australia, some high bandwidth content creators (e.g. Big Brother)
enter into agreements with telcos to allow unrated access to their
content.  I am curious whether that type of sponsorship statement
appear on every single website page, or just on the entry screens.  If
a telco provides Wikipedia content freely to their customers, but
inserts a sponsorship statement like Wikipedia Zero, will Wikimedia
Foundation take them to court...for distributing Wikipedia content
freely without Wikimedia Foundation's blessing?

Do we want other free content providers, such as Project Gutenberg and
Distributed Proofreaders, to be less freely accessible than Wikipedia,
because telcos only consider 'Wikipedia' as a viable loss leader, and
these other free content projects dont have the human resources needed
to establish contracts with telcos?  Wikipedia has been built on the
back of these other free content projects, with millions of volunteers
who scanned/photographed/transcribed free content which has been
imported into Wikipedia and sister projects.  *If* we help erode net
neutrality, and telcos turn the Internet into a TV model, it may not
prevent Wikipedia being distributed as the telcos might be happy to
use Wikipedia as a loss leader, but it will strangle the vibrant free
content marketplace of which we have been a thought leader, and helped
Wikipedia become what it is today.  Wikimedia is not an island.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Mike Godwin  wrote:
> If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for
> him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to
> Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that
> Wikipedia doesn't force me to see.
>
> I don't actually see the Wikipedia banner ads, so I can't understand
> how MZ has conflated his experience with Wikipedia -- where I guess he
> does not log in -- with his experience of PBS, whose sponsorship
> announcements can't be avoided even if you are a donor.
>
> I do follow the debate about PBS from time to time, but MZ's comments
> haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.
>
>
> --Mike
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> Mike Godwin wrote:
>>>Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to
>>>justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does.
>>>But we don't have to let their propagandists define us.
>>
>> I think we should be explicit here: in exchange for zero-rated access to
>> Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the
>> page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated
>> telecommunications company. So much for "we'll never run advertising," eh.
>>
>> I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this
>> thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do
>> wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only
>> available in "developing countries" (which we somehow make more pejorative
>> by using the term "Global South")? When will Wikipedia Zero be available
>> in the United States or in the United Kingdom?
>>
>>>What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
>>>higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
>>>increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
>>>increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
>>>this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
>>>world. That is an una

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mike Godwin]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:56 PM, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
> Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument ...

Nor was it offered as a pro-Wikipedia Zero argument! It is instead an
argument intended *specifically to underscore inconsistent standards
of analysis.* It is, instead, specifically addressed to the specific
complaint about interpreting banners as advertising. (Drilling down
even further: I don't see the banners on Wikipedia at all. So
necessarily the banners cannot be annoying to me.)

Since much of what you write is based on the misunderstanding that I
was using PBS as a pro-Wikipedia-Zero argument, I'm passing over the
misunderstanding without comment.

The larger issue: do we care more about Wikipedia's mission or more
about preserving some absolutist application of net neutrality? I
think Wikipedia's mission is more important, and you may disagree,
which is fine.

As I said in the piece, I care about both. But I also know that an
absolutely rigorous application of net neutrality--you know, the kind
of invariant principle that hobbyists who never to try to fund
anything themselves are prone to cook up--would require that emergency
phone calls (think 911 in the USA or 999 in the UK, for example) be
charged to the user.

Do you think emergency communications should be charged to the user by
the bit, John? If not, how do you justify that departure from
absolutist net-neutrality principles? And if you're not an absolutist
about net neutrality, then why can't you allow for the possibility
that access to Wikipedia may do more to help citizens of the
developing world than absolutist net neutrality will help them?

If you are comfortable condemning the developing world to charging
Wikipedia users for information by the bit for the indefinite future,
then by all means insist on network neutrality without exceptions.
(And certainly make sure that you enable all users to turn off
expensive emergency communications!)

But I seem to recall something about Wikipedia's providing the world's
information to everyone for free. The developing world needs to be
able to do this via mobile providers, whose business model is to
charge by the bit (or by the data plan).  I don't recall elevating net
neutrality as a principle above Wikipedia's mission.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Jens Best]

Hi Mike,

sorry for the delay of my answer and thanks to all for the discussion
which is trying to look forward instead of just talking about the
mistakes and hopes surrounding Wikipedia Zero in the past. I would
like to follow your example, Mike, and not going point by point
through your arguments but trying to break new ground for future
solutions of the actual problem.

John Vandenberg gave us a nice picture by saying that Wikimedia isn’t
an island in the world of free content projects. It's more one of the
mountains in the landscape of Free Knowledge and public content
online. I think going in this direction can create a solution which
re-unites the varying positions.

Wikipedia Zero should be newly framed as a leading example of Public
Free Knowledge.

Therefore the WP0-initiative proved that the future of the web should
include zero-rating when the word „access“ is taken in a classical
understanding of free publicness. Public like streets and libraries.
Common access to streets and to public libraries are a cornerstone for
a free society therefore Telecoms which agreed on giving Wikipedia
zero-rated status should be welcoming by add more free content (like
e.g. the video-libraries of great universities) to their offer.

A Telecom provider which would then argue that a video library with
lots of free educational videos isn't the same thing as Wikipedia
clearly isn't sharing the views of the movement and obviously was led
by different interests than us. A Telecom which isn't ready to take
its responsibility for a society serious maybe wasn't a good partner
in the beginning. Such access providers shouldn’t be partners of us in
the future when Wikipedia is leading a global initiative to give as
many as possible Public Free Knowledge (text, foto, video, graphics,
data, visualizations) to the people. This would be a leap forward,
especially for the Global South.

An access provider (e.g. Orange) which only shows interest in our
brand product Wikipedia most probably isn’t really interested in
giving Free Knowledge to the people and therefore shouldn’t partnering
with us. Also only selecting a few non-data-extensive education stuff
to zero-rate apart from Wikipedia isn't really a clear statement but
more of a fig leaf.

It should be the focus of the well-paid people at the WMF to change
the approach on contract-making according to the Public Free Knowledge
approach and so proving that Wikipedia isn’t just a mountain which
doesn’t care about its surrounding but a powerful player who is
interested not only in its own brand, but in the global access to free
knowledge.

I have some thoughts about how the range of Public Free Knowledge
could be defined nationally and globally, but I would like to hear
your thoughts on my layout so far first.

best regards

Jens Best

2014-12-09 4:56 GMT+01:00, John Mark Vandenberg :
> Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument, as
> the TV network model is itself a convincing argument effectively used
> by the pro-net-neutrality people as a worst case outcome of eroding
> net neutrality - most people agree we need to avoid the Internet
> descending to a TV network model, where distribution costs must be
> paid by someone before the content is put onto the network.  NPR/radio
> might be a better comparison, but again there the government grants
> spectrum licenses, and it still differs from 'the Internet' as content
> can't be pulled adhoc by the listener; the content is pushed over
> physically limited resources (and adding channels requires engineering
> advances / spectrum reorganisation, which is not as simple as laying
> extra cables), and someone else decides what is pushed out, and when.
>
> It seems Wikipedia Zero has 'sponsorship statements' because that was
> a requirement imposed by these telcos in exchange for getting free
> access to their networks to distributing Wikipedia Zero content and
> Wikimedia Foundation decided it is an acceptable requirement, so it
> was added to the contracts with these organisations.
>
> Many worry that there are a few slippery slopes and conundrums around
> our current position.  Two that concern me are..
>
> Do we want all ISPs/telco's putting a 'sponsorship statement' on top
> of Wikipedia content, as their requirement for allowing Wikipedia
> content to be sent freely across their network to the reader?  In
> Australia, some high bandwidth content creators (e.g. Big Brother)
> enter into agreements with telcos to allow unrated access to their
> content.  I am curious whether that type of sponsorship statement
> appear on every single website page, or just on the entry screens.  If
> a telco provides Wikipedia content freely to their customers, but
> inserts a sponsorship statement like Wikipedia Zero, will Wikimedia
> Foundation take them to court...for distributing Wikipedia content
> freely without Wikimedia Foundation's blessing?
>
> Do we want other free content providers, such as Project Gutenberg and
> Di

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mike Godwin]

Jens writes:


On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Jens Best  wrote:

> Common access to streets and to public libraries are a cornerstone for
> a free society therefore Telecoms which agreed on giving Wikipedia
> zero-rated status should be welcoming by add more free content (like
> e.g. the video-libraries of great universities) to their offer.

I agree. But I think it is not part of the mission of Wikipedia to try
to compel telecom companies to do this with regard to resources we
don't produce. Not even Creative Commons tries to do that, so far as I
know.

> An access provider (e.g. Orange) which only shows interest in our
> brand product Wikipedia most probably isn’t really interested in
> giving Free Knowledge to the people and therefore shouldn’t partnering
> with us.

Why do we need to inspect their motives if the result is that more
people have more access to the free knowledge and other resources we
provide? Especially if the alternative--refusing to partner with
them--will likely result in citizens in the developing world having
less access than you and I do, perhaps for the rest of this century?

> It should be the focus of the well-paid people at the WMF to change
> the approach on contract-making according to the Public Free Knowledge
> approach and so proving that Wikipedia isn’t just a mountain which
> doesn’t care about its surrounding but a powerful player who is
> interested not only in its own brand, but in the global access to free
> knowledge.

I think the focus of people at WMF should be on getting as much free
knowledge distributed, at as low a cost as possible, to everyone in
the developing world and elsewhere. I know that this is considered a
hopelessly primitive notion, but I'm stuck with thinking that
near-term access to free knowledge for a developing-world citizen in
her 20s is more important than refusal to engage in compromise without
which she may not get such unfettered access until she's in her 70s.
If ever.

WMF is not fundamentally a policy organization, although it does
engage in policy from time to time as required by external events.
Network neutrality has its own advocates independent of WMF. Let's let
them do their job, and let's try to do ours. And, as I pointed out,
Wikipedia Zero may actually result in the kind of demand that requires
mobile providers to build out their capacity enough to free users from
restrictive data plans.

This of course is a prerequisite for net neutrality to work in a
developing country.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Erik Moeller]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jens Best  wrote:

> Wikipedia Zero should be newly framed as a leading example of Public
> Free Knowledge.

Hey Jens,

I think your line of argument here is reasonable, and we are generally
thinking in the direction of how Wikipedia can be part of a broader
coalition dedicated to free access to knowledge. Wikipedia Zero
started off as an experiment to bring Wikipedia to millions of people
who could otherwise not afford it. But now we should think (and are
thinking) about the kind of coalition we want to create to bring free
knowledge to every person on the planet, rather than primarily
advocating for free access to Wikipedia.

I'd be indeed curious about your thoughts on how to define Public Free
Knowledge. IMO the licensing status of the material ought to play some
role in defining what kinds of resources should be made freely
available in this manner. I don't know that this should be an
absolutely non-negotiable criterion (even Wikimedia makes exceptions),
but it should count for something.

Freely licensed material (in a manner compatible with the Definition
of Free Cultural Works or the Open Knowledge Definition) is not tied
to a specific website and host; the ability to fork free knowledge is
a fundamental protection against the misuse of power. Moreover, if
society creates a social contract that freely licensed and public
domain information should be available free of charge, this creates
further incentives to contribute to a true commons. It protects our
heritage and reminds us to expand it. This is a position entirely
consistent with our mission, as well.

I agree with Mike that WMF needs to take a practical stance to bring
free knowledge to the largest number of people, and we need not
apologize for Wikipedia Zero -- it's a program that serves the
organization's mission well. But entirely practically speaking,
building a greater coalition in support of access to knowledge could
serve the mission to an even greater extent, if we manage to pull it
off.

Imagine a world where you can take a smartphone or tablet without a
contract and immediately connect to an ever-growing library of free
knowledge, without charge. I couldn't think of a better 21st century
equivalent to the foundation of public libraries, and frankly of a
better way to even the odds for the survival of our species.

Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you consider that Wikipedia is the most used source of information in
the countires where ebola is rife, it makes these countries particularly
important to have Wikipedia zero. They are.

There is no way we should underestimate the importance of Wikipedia zero.
It effectively saves lives.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 9 December 2014 at 07:28, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jens Best  wrote:
>
> > Wikipedia Zero should be newly framed as a leading example of Public
> > Free Knowledge.
>
> Hey Jens,
>
> I think your line of argument here is reasonable, and we are generally
> thinking in the direction of how Wikipedia can be part of a broader
> coalition dedicated to free access to knowledge. Wikipedia Zero
> started off as an experiment to bring Wikipedia to millions of people
> who could otherwise not afford it. But now we should think (and are
> thinking) about the kind of coalition we want to create to bring free
> knowledge to every person on the planet, rather than primarily
> advocating for free access to Wikipedia.
>
> I'd be indeed curious about your thoughts on how to define Public Free
> Knowledge. IMO the licensing status of the material ought to play some
> role in defining what kinds of resources should be made freely
> available in this manner. I don't know that this should be an
> absolutely non-negotiable criterion (even Wikimedia makes exceptions),
> but it should count for something.
>
> Freely licensed material (in a manner compatible with the Definition
> of Free Cultural Works or the Open Knowledge Definition) is not tied
> to a specific website and host; the ability to fork free knowledge is
> a fundamental protection against the misuse of power. Moreover, if
> society creates a social contract that freely licensed and public
> domain information should be available free of charge, this creates
> further incentives to contribute to a true commons. It protects our
> heritage and reminds us to expand it. This is a position entirely
> consistent with our mission, as well.
>
> I agree with Mike that WMF needs to take a practical stance to bring
> free knowledge to the largest number of people, and we need not
> apologize for Wikipedia Zero -- it's a program that serves the
> organization's mission well. But entirely practically speaking,
> building a greater coalition in support of access to knowledge could
> serve the mission to an even greater extent, if we manage to pull it
> off.
>
> Imagine a world where you can take a smartphone or tablet without a
> contract and immediately connect to an ever-growing library of free
> knowledge, without charge. I couldn't think of a better 21st century
> equivalent to the foundation of public libraries, and frankly of a
> better way to even the odds for the survival of our species.
>
> Erik
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,