Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Kunal Mehta]

Hi,

On 2020-07-09 13:15, Dan Garry (Deskana) wrote:
> Which cloud provider would you recommend? 

Wikimedia Cloud Services, which incidentally, has the fastest network
connection to Wikimedia sites by virtue of it being hosted *inside* the
cluster.

-- Legoktm



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[David Gerard]

All cloud providers are approximately level in evil. The way we break
it down at my day job is:

* AWS: when you want it to work and want customer service
* Microsoft: when you hate yourself, you're running Windows or both
* Google: when you want zero customer service ever under any circumstances
* Ali: when you're serving in China
* Oracle: lol no, not under any circumstances are we signing up with
Oracle again for anything

My personal server is at Hetzner, which is cheaper than AWS with less
services - but that's a very bespoke box, not managed cattle in a
server farm.

tl;dr if we're going to use cloud at all rather than our own cloud,
AWS is as good as any and better technically.


- d.



On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 21:16, Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 18:20, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
>
> > * I find it ethically wrong to use AWS, even if you can't host it in WMF
> > for legal reasons, why not another cloud provider.
>
>
> Which cloud provider would you recommend? Popular alternatives to AWS
> include GCP (by Google, who unscrupulously harvest user data and sell it
> for profit) and Azure (by Microsoft who arguably owe their position in the
> market due to numerous anti-competitive practices for which they have
> fought, and lost, numerous lawsuits). In addition to that, there are
> numerous other factors to consider, such as cost (we should be responsible
> with donor money), and environmental impact of the hosting choice in
> question. My point is, there is no objectively correct ethical choice.
>
> There's also numerous other factors to take into account in addition to
> ethics. There are different feature sets that each cloud provider offers;
> as an example, I recently did a competitive analysis of different
> cloud-hosted container registry providers, and was surprised at the large
> number of feature differences in each provider, even for something as
> relatively straightforward as a container registry, even between ECR and
> GKE. Engineering productivity is an important factor too.
>
> From a project management perspective, it seems to me that the most prudent
> thing to do is to choose a solution for prototyping rather than spending an
> excessive amount of time analysing it. After all, time is money. I would be
> concerned by the choice of AWS if this were in any way a permanent choice,
> but the docs specifically mention that AWS is being used for ease of
> prototyping, and that the long-term solution is presently undetermined.
>
> Dan
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 21:15, Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:

> ECR and GKE.
>

Correction: I meant GCR, not GKE.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 18:20, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:

> * I find it ethically wrong to use AWS, even if you can't host it in WMF
> for legal reasons, why not another cloud provider.


Which cloud provider would you recommend? Popular alternatives to AWS
include GCP (by Google, who unscrupulously harvest user data and sell it
for profit) and Azure (by Microsoft who arguably owe their position in the
market due to numerous anti-competitive practices for which they have
fought, and lost, numerous lawsuits). In addition to that, there are
numerous other factors to consider, such as cost (we should be responsible
with donor money), and environmental impact of the hosting choice in
question. My point is, there is no objectively correct ethical choice.

There's also numerous other factors to take into account in addition to
ethics. There are different feature sets that each cloud provider offers;
as an example, I recently did a competitive analysis of different
cloud-hosted container registry providers, and was surprised at the large
number of feature differences in each provider, even for something as
relatively straightforward as a container registry, even between ECR and
GKE. Engineering productivity is an important factor too.

From a project management perspective, it seems to me that the most prudent
thing to do is to choose a solution for prototyping rather than spending an
excessive amount of time analysing it. After all, time is money. I would be
concerned by the choice of AWS if this were in any way a permanent choice,
but the docs specifically mention that AWS is being used for ease of
prototyping, and that the long-term solution is presently undetermined.

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

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Research Showcase] July 15, 2020: Medical Knowledge on Wikipedia

[Janna Layton]

Hi all,

The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed on Wednesday, July 15, at
9:30 AM PDT/16:30 UTC.

Wikipedia is one of the most important online resources for health
information. This has been especially highlighted during the Covid-19
pandemic: since the beginning of the year more than 5000 articles related
to Covid-19 have been created receiving more than 400M pageviews.
Therefore, for this month’s showcase our two invited speakers will help us
get a better understanding of the state of medical knowledge in Wikipedia.
In the first talk, Denise Smith will give an overview on how Wikipedia's
health content is used by different audiences (public, students, or
practitioners). In the second talk, Giovanni Colavizza will present results
on how editors on Wikipedia find, select, and integrate scientific
information on Covid-19 into Wikipedia articles.

YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIV26lWrD9c

As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. You
can also watch our past research showcases here:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase

This month's presentations:

Wikipedia for health information - Situating Wikipedia as a health
information resource

By Denise Smith (McMaster University, Health Sciences Library & Western
University, Faculty of Information & Media Studies)

Wikipedia is the most frequently accessed web site for health information,
but the various ways users engage with Wikipedia’s health content has not
been thoroughly investigated or reported. This talk will summarize the
findings of a comprehensive literature review published in February. It
explores all the contexts in which Wikipedia’s health content is used that
have been reported in academic literature. The talk will focus on the
findings reported in this paper, the potential impact of this study in
health and medical librarianship, the practice of medicine, and medical or
health education.


   -

   D.A. Smith (2020). "Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource
   in various contexts: A scoping review". PLoS ONE.
   https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228786



COVID-19 research in Wikipedia

By Giovanni Colavizza (University of Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Wikipedia is one of the main sources of free knowledge on the Web. During
the first few months of the pandemic, over 4,500 new Wikipedia pages on
COVID-19 have been created and have accumulated close to 250M pageviews by
early April 2020.1 At the same time, an unprecedented amount of scientific
articles on COVID-19 and the ongoing pandemic have been published online.
Wikipedia’s contents are based on reliable sources, primarily scientific
literature. Given its public function, it is crucial for Wikipedia to rely
on representative and reliable scientific results, especially so in a time
of crisis. We assess the coverage of COVID-19-related research in Wikipedia
via citations. We find that Wikipedia editors are integrating new research
at an unprecedented fast pace. While doing so, they are able to provide a
largely representative coverage of COVID-19-related research. We show that
all the main topics discussed in this literature are proportionally
represented from Wikipedia, after accounting for article-level effects. We
further use regression analyses to model citations from Wikipedia and show
that, despite the pressure to keep up with novel results, Wikipedia editors
rely on literature which is highly cited, widely shared on social media,
and has been peer-reviewed.


   -

   G. Colavizza (2020). "COVID-19 research in Wikipedia". bioRxiv.
   https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.10.087643v2


-- 
Janna Layton (she/her)
Administrative Assistant - Product & Technology
Wikimedia Foundation 

-- 
Janna Layton (she/her)
Administrative Assistant - Product & Technology
Wikimedia Foundation 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Joseph Seddon]

Hey all.

I'll reply to some of the more finer legal details tomorrow but to be clear
the repo will be made available publicly and the code base will be open
sourced and based on open source tech.

Seddon

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, 19:06 Benjamin Ikuta,  wrote:

>
>
> I agree, the lack of transparency is quite concerning, as is the use of
> AWS.
>
> I sure hope we're not going to be producing closed source code!
>
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
>
> > Thanks Joseph for the links. It's more clear now.
> >
> > I think I need to clarify something: I'm not against asking the big corps
> > to pay. If they are using a significant amount of our computational
> > resources (=donors money) to make even more money, they should pay. And
> > thank you for improving the movement's financial security. I don't oppose
> > the general idea.
> >
> > That being said, what worries me are the details:
> > * WMF is creating a company (LLC) and contracts that company, this means
> > less transparency. This is the first time I think in the history of the
> > foundation AFAIK that WMF is creating a company for legal reasons (I'm
> > sorry if I missed anything).
> > * That company is contracting another company for engineering work (even
> > less transparency). We have lots of engineering resources at WMF.
> > * As the result, for the first time, code produced by donors money is
> > closed source and inaccessible to public (or at least I couldn't find the
> > code linked anywhere)
> > * I find it ethically wrong to use AWS, even if you can't host it in WMF
> > for legal reasons, why not another cloud provider.
> > * There wasn't a period for giving feedback for example about the choice
> of
> > cloud provider or anything, suddenly it came out ready. The rumors about
> it
> > have been going around for months.
> > * This has not been communicated properly to the community, I find this
> > lack of communication and transparency concerning and insulting.
> >
> > Hope what I'm saying here makes sense.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:02 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> >> I tend to agree with this. I'm one of the first to criticize WMF when
> they
> >> deserve it (I wish they didn't as often!), but I see nothing wrong with
> >> consumers of huge amounts of data being asked to chip in to cover the
> costs
> >> of providing it. That is, of course, provided that there is never any
> fee
> >> for use of the API for users of data in regular amounts, but every plan
> >> I've seen thus far accommodates that.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:15 AM Ad Huikeshoven 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Great news: the WMF is going to charge the tech giants for using the
> API
> >>> millions of times each day. Nothing in the free licenses we use
> obligate
> >> us
> >>> (that is we in our movement) to provide an API for free as in beer. It
> is
> >>> part of KAAS: Knowledge As A Service, part of the strategic direction
> >>> chosen in 2017.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your understanding,
> >>>
> >>> Ad Huikeshoven
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:33 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Hello,
>  Today I stumbled upon this public phabricator ticket [1] created by
> >>> someone
>  from WMF starting with:
>  "My team is creating bi-weekly HTML Dumps for all of the wikis, except
> >>> for
>  wikidata as part of the paid API project."
> 
>  I have so many questions:
>  - What is the "paid API" project? Are we planning to make money out of
> >>> our
>  API? Now are we selling our dumps?
>  - If so, why is this not communicated before? Why are we kept in the
> >>> dark?
>  - Does the board know and approve it?
>  - How is this going to align with our core values like openness and
>  transparency?
>  - The ticket implicitly says these are going to be stored on AWS ("S3
>  bucket"). Is this thought through? Specially the ethical problems of
>  feeding Jeff Bezos' empire? (If you have seen this episode of Hasan
>  Minhaj's on ethical issues of using AWS [2]). Why can't we do/host
> this
> >>> on
>  Wikimedia infrastructure? Has this been evaluated?
>  - Why is the community not consulted about this?
> 
>  Maybe I missed announcements, consultations or anything, forgive me
> for
> >>> my
>  ignorance. Any pointers is enough. I also understand diversifying our
>  revenue is a good tool for rainy days but a consultation with the
> >>> community
>  wouldn't be too bad.
> 
>  [1]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T254275
>  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5maXvZ5fyQY
> 
>  Best
>  --
>  Amir (he/him)
>  ___
>  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>  New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Jan Ainali]

Let me just flip the perspective. The tech giants are leveraging their
resources to serve the knowledge we create to even more users. In a way,
they are partly furthering our mission. So rather than solely using our
resources as a cost, it could instead be viewed upon as a multiplier. Now
this is just a hypothesis that I have no facts to back up, but it would be
nice if this project had this factor as a part of the analysis, if only to
prove it wrong.

To boil it down: are we sharing the knowledge to fewer or more people due
to the tech giants?
If it is fewer, they should just be stopped rather than asked to pay.
If it is more, there is an argument for allowing it to incur costs, this is
after all our mission. Of course, if the cost is cannibalizing our capacity
to serve knowledge to others then some more complex evaluation needs to be
done. As far as I am aware no such analysis has been published. If I am
mistaken, a link would be appreciated.

Jan Ainali

Den tors 9 juli 2020 kl 20:06 skrev Benjamin Ikuta :

>
>
> I agree, the lack of transparency is quite concerning, as is the use of
> AWS.
>
> I sure hope we're not going to be producing closed source code!
>
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
>
> > Thanks Joseph for the links. It's more clear now.
> >
> > I think I need to clarify something: I'm not against asking the big corps
> > to pay. If they are using a significant amount of our computational
> > resources (=donors money) to make even more money, they should pay. And
> > thank you for improving the movement's financial security. I don't oppose
> > the general idea.
> >
> > That being said, what worries me are the details:
> > * WMF is creating a company (LLC) and contracts that company, this means
> > less transparency. This is the first time I think in the history of the
> > foundation AFAIK that WMF is creating a company for legal reasons (I'm
> > sorry if I missed anything).
> > * That company is contracting another company for engineering work (even
> > less transparency). We have lots of engineering resources at WMF.
> > * As the result, for the first time, code produced by donors money is
> > closed source and inaccessible to public (or at least I couldn't find the
> > code linked anywhere)
> > * I find it ethically wrong to use AWS, even if you can't host it in WMF
> > for legal reasons, why not another cloud provider.
> > * There wasn't a period for giving feedback for example about the choice
> of
> > cloud provider or anything, suddenly it came out ready. The rumors about
> it
> > have been going around for months.
> > * This has not been communicated properly to the community, I find this
> > lack of communication and transparency concerning and insulting.
> >
> > Hope what I'm saying here makes sense.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:02 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> >> I tend to agree with this. I'm one of the first to criticize WMF when
> they
> >> deserve it (I wish they didn't as often!), but I see nothing wrong with
> >> consumers of huge amounts of data being asked to chip in to cover the
> costs
> >> of providing it. That is, of course, provided that there is never any
> fee
> >> for use of the API for users of data in regular amounts, but every plan
> >> I've seen thus far accommodates that.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:15 AM Ad Huikeshoven 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Great news: the WMF is going to charge the tech giants for using the
> API
> >>> millions of times each day. Nothing in the free licenses we use
> obligate
> >> us
> >>> (that is we in our movement) to provide an API for free as in beer. It
> is
> >>> part of KAAS: Knowledge As A Service, part of the strategic direction
> >>> chosen in 2017.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your understanding,
> >>>
> >>> Ad Huikeshoven
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:33 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Hello,
>  Today I stumbled upon this public phabricator ticket [1] created by
> >>> someone
>  from WMF starting with:
>  "My team is creating bi-weekly HTML Dumps for all of the wikis, except
> >>> for
>  wikidata as part of the paid API project."
> 
>  I have so many questions:
>  - What is the "paid API" project? Are we planning to make money out of
> >>> our
>  API? Now are we selling our dumps?
>  - If so, why is this not communicated before? Why are we kept in the
> >>> dark?
>  - Does the board know and approve it?
>  - How is this going to align with our core values like openness and
>  transparency?
>  - The ticket implicitly says these are going to be stored on AWS ("S3
>  bucket"). Is this thought through? Specially the ethical problems of
>  feeding Jeff Bezos' empire? (If you have seen this episode of Hasan
>  Minhaj's on ethical issues of using AWS [2]). Why can't we do/host
> this
> >>> on
>  Wikimedia infrastructure? Has this been evaluated?
>  - Why is the community not consulted 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I agree, the lack of transparency is quite concerning, as is the use of AWS. 

I sure hope we're not going to be producing closed source code! 



On Jul 9, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:

> Thanks Joseph for the links. It's more clear now.
> 
> I think I need to clarify something: I'm not against asking the big corps
> to pay. If they are using a significant amount of our computational
> resources (=donors money) to make even more money, they should pay. And
> thank you for improving the movement's financial security. I don't oppose
> the general idea.
> 
> That being said, what worries me are the details:
> * WMF is creating a company (LLC) and contracts that company, this means
> less transparency. This is the first time I think in the history of the
> foundation AFAIK that WMF is creating a company for legal reasons (I'm
> sorry if I missed anything).
> * That company is contracting another company for engineering work (even
> less transparency). We have lots of engineering resources at WMF.
> * As the result, for the first time, code produced by donors money is
> closed source and inaccessible to public (or at least I couldn't find the
> code linked anywhere)
> * I find it ethically wrong to use AWS, even if you can't host it in WMF
> for legal reasons, why not another cloud provider.
> * There wasn't a period for giving feedback for example about the choice of
> cloud provider or anything, suddenly it came out ready. The rumors about it
> have been going around for months.
> * This has not been communicated properly to the community, I find this
> lack of communication and transparency concerning and insulting.
> 
> Hope what I'm saying here makes sense.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:02 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
>> I tend to agree with this. I'm one of the first to criticize WMF when they
>> deserve it (I wish they didn't as often!), but I see nothing wrong with
>> consumers of huge amounts of data being asked to chip in to cover the costs
>> of providing it. That is, of course, provided that there is never any fee
>> for use of the API for users of data in regular amounts, but every plan
>> I've seen thus far accommodates that.
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:15 AM Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Great news: the WMF is going to charge the tech giants for using the API
>>> millions of times each day. Nothing in the free licenses we use obligate
>> us
>>> (that is we in our movement) to provide an API for free as in beer. It is
>>> part of KAAS: Knowledge As A Service, part of the strategic direction
>>> chosen in 2017.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your understanding,
>>> 
>>> Ad Huikeshoven
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:33 PM Amir Sarabadani 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Hello,
 Today I stumbled upon this public phabricator ticket [1] created by
>>> someone
 from WMF starting with:
 "My team is creating bi-weekly HTML Dumps for all of the wikis, except
>>> for
 wikidata as part of the paid API project."
 
 I have so many questions:
 - What is the "paid API" project? Are we planning to make money out of
>>> our
 API? Now are we selling our dumps?
 - If so, why is this not communicated before? Why are we kept in the
>>> dark?
 - Does the board know and approve it?
 - How is this going to align with our core values like openness and
 transparency?
 - The ticket implicitly says these are going to be stored on AWS ("S3
 bucket"). Is this thought through? Specially the ethical problems of
 feeding Jeff Bezos' empire? (If you have seen this episode of Hasan
 Minhaj's on ethical issues of using AWS [2]). Why can't we do/host this
>>> on
 Wikimedia infrastructure? Has this been evaluated?
 - Why is the community not consulted about this?
 
 Maybe I missed announcements, consultations or anything, forgive me for
>>> my
 ignorance. Any pointers is enough. I also understand diversifying our
 revenue is a good tool for rainy days but a consultation with the
>>> community
 wouldn't be too bad.
 
 [1]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T254275
 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5maXvZ5fyQY
 
 Best
 --
 Amir (he/him)
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
 New messages to: 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 and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Pete Forsyth]

Worth noting, for those who may not have been tracking this issue in the
media in recent years: CEO Katherine Maher has prominently and frequently
highlighted how big tech companies benefit from Wikipedia and Wikimedia
content, and that they pay little if anything for it. This shows up in many
places; perhaps Joseph can add to this list if I haven't picked the best
example:

* April Glaser: YouTube Is Adding Fact-Check Links for Videos on Topics
That Inspire Conspiracy Theories, August 14, 2018, Slate
https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/youtube-is-adding-fact-check-links-from-wikipedia-and-encyclopedia-britannica-for-videos-on-topics-that-inspire-conspiracy-theories.html
* And a number of tweets such as:
https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/1113394557830483969

-Pete
--
User:Peteforsyth

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:20 AM Amir Sarabadani  wrote:

> Thanks Joseph for the links. It's more clear now.
>
> I think I need to clarify something: I'm not against asking the big corps
> to pay. If they are using a significant amount of our computational
> resources (=donors money) to make even more money, they should pay. And
> thank you for improving the movement's financial security. I don't oppose
> the general idea.
>
> That being said, what worries me are the details:
> * WMF is creating a company (LLC) and contracts that company, this means
> less transparency. This is the first time I think in the history of the
> foundation AFAIK that WMF is creating a company for legal reasons (I'm
> sorry if I missed anything).
> * That company is contracting another company for engineering work (even
> less transparency). We have lots of engineering resources at WMF.
> * As the result, for the first time, code produced by donors money is
> closed source and inaccessible to public (or at least I couldn't find the
> code linked anywhere)
> * I find it ethically wrong to use AWS, even if you can't host it in WMF
> for legal reasons, why not another cloud provider.
> * There wasn't a period for giving feedback for example about the choice of
> cloud provider or anything, suddenly it came out ready. The rumors about it
> have been going around for months.
> * This has not been communicated properly to the community, I find this
> lack of communication and transparency concerning and insulting.
>
> Hope what I'm saying here makes sense.
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:02 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > I tend to agree with this. I'm one of the first to criticize WMF when
> they
> > deserve it (I wish they didn't as often!), but I see nothing wrong with
> > consumers of huge amounts of data being asked to chip in to cover the
> costs
> > of providing it. That is, of course, provided that there is never any fee
> > for use of the API for users of data in regular amounts, but every plan
> > I've seen thus far accommodates that.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:15 AM Ad Huikeshoven 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Great news: the WMF is going to charge the tech giants for using the
> API
> > > millions of times each day. Nothing in the free licenses we use
> obligate
> > us
> > > (that is we in our movement) to provide an API for free as in beer. It
> is
> > > part of KAAS: Knowledge As A Service, part of the strategic direction
> > > chosen in 2017.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your understanding,
> > >
> > > Ad Huikeshoven
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:33 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > > Today I stumbled upon this public phabricator ticket [1] created by
> > > someone
> > > > from WMF starting with:
> > > > "My team is creating bi-weekly HTML Dumps for all of the wikis,
> except
> > > for
> > > > wikidata as part of the paid API project."
> > > >
> > > > I have so many questions:
> > > >  - What is the "paid API" project? Are we planning to make money out
> of
> > > our
> > > > API? Now are we selling our dumps?
> > > >  - If so, why is this not communicated before? Why are we kept in the
> > > dark?
> > > >  - Does the board know and approve it?
> > > >  - How is this going to align with our core values like openness and
> > > > transparency?
> > > >  - The ticket implicitly says these are going to be stored on AWS
> ("S3
> > > > bucket"). Is this thought through? Specially the ethical problems of
> > > > feeding Jeff Bezos' empire? (If you have seen this episode of Hasan
> > > > Minhaj's on ethical issues of using AWS [2]). Why can't we do/host
> this
> > > on
> > > > Wikimedia infrastructure? Has this been evaluated?
> > > >  - Why is the community not consulted about this?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I missed announcements, consultations or anything, forgive me
> for
> > > my
> > > > ignorance. Any pointers is enough. I also understand diversifying our
> > > > revenue is a good tool for rainy days but a consultation with the
> > > community
> > > > wouldn't be too bad.
> > > >
> > > > [1]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T254275
> > > > [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5maXvZ5fyQY
> > > >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Amir Sarabadani]

Thanks Joseph for the links. It's more clear now.

I think I need to clarify something: I'm not against asking the big corps
to pay. If they are using a significant amount of our computational
resources (=donors money) to make even more money, they should pay. And
thank you for improving the movement's financial security. I don't oppose
the general idea.

That being said, what worries me are the details:
* WMF is creating a company (LLC) and contracts that company, this means
less transparency. This is the first time I think in the history of the
foundation AFAIK that WMF is creating a company for legal reasons (I'm
sorry if I missed anything).
* That company is contracting another company for engineering work (even
less transparency). We have lots of engineering resources at WMF.
* As the result, for the first time, code produced by donors money is
closed source and inaccessible to public (or at least I couldn't find the
code linked anywhere)
* I find it ethically wrong to use AWS, even if you can't host it in WMF
for legal reasons, why not another cloud provider.
* There wasn't a period for giving feedback for example about the choice of
cloud provider or anything, suddenly it came out ready. The rumors about it
have been going around for months.
* This has not been communicated properly to the community, I find this
lack of communication and transparency concerning and insulting.

Hope what I'm saying here makes sense.

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:02 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

> I tend to agree with this. I'm one of the first to criticize WMF when they
> deserve it (I wish they didn't as often!), but I see nothing wrong with
> consumers of huge amounts of data being asked to chip in to cover the costs
> of providing it. That is, of course, provided that there is never any fee
> for use of the API for users of data in regular amounts, but every plan
> I've seen thus far accommodates that.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:15 AM Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Great news: the WMF is going to charge the tech giants for using the API
> > millions of times each day. Nothing in the free licenses we use obligate
> us
> > (that is we in our movement) to provide an API for free as in beer. It is
> > part of KAAS: Knowledge As A Service, part of the strategic direction
> > chosen in 2017.
> >
> > Thanks for your understanding,
> >
> > Ad Huikeshoven
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:33 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > > Today I stumbled upon this public phabricator ticket [1] created by
> > someone
> > > from WMF starting with:
> > > "My team is creating bi-weekly HTML Dumps for all of the wikis, except
> > for
> > > wikidata as part of the paid API project."
> > >
> > > I have so many questions:
> > >  - What is the "paid API" project? Are we planning to make money out of
> > our
> > > API? Now are we selling our dumps?
> > >  - If so, why is this not communicated before? Why are we kept in the
> > dark?
> > >  - Does the board know and approve it?
> > >  - How is this going to align with our core values like openness and
> > > transparency?
> > >  - The ticket implicitly says these are going to be stored on AWS ("S3
> > > bucket"). Is this thought through? Specially the ethical problems of
> > > feeding Jeff Bezos' empire? (If you have seen this episode of Hasan
> > > Minhaj's on ethical issues of using AWS [2]). Why can't we do/host this
> > on
> > > Wikimedia infrastructure? Has this been evaluated?
> > >  - Why is the community not consulted about this?
> > >
> > > Maybe I missed announcements, consultations or anything, forgive me for
> > my
> > > ignorance. Any pointers is enough. I also understand diversifying our
> > > revenue is a good tool for rainy days but a consultation with the
> > community
> > > wouldn't be too bad.
> > >
> > > [1]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T254275
> > > [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5maXvZ5fyQY
> > >
> > > Best
> > > --
> > > Amir (he/him)
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: 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 and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Todd Allen]

I tend to agree with this. I'm one of the first to criticize WMF when they
deserve it (I wish they didn't as often!), but I see nothing wrong with
consumers of huge amounts of data being asked to chip in to cover the costs
of providing it. That is, of course, provided that there is never any fee
for use of the API for users of data in regular amounts, but every plan
I've seen thus far accommodates that.

Todd

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:15 AM Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Great news: the WMF is going to charge the tech giants for using the API
> millions of times each day. Nothing in the free licenses we use obligate us
> (that is we in our movement) to provide an API for free as in beer. It is
> part of KAAS: Knowledge As A Service, part of the strategic direction
> chosen in 2017.
>
> Thanks for your understanding,
>
> Ad Huikeshoven
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:33 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > Today I stumbled upon this public phabricator ticket [1] created by
> someone
> > from WMF starting with:
> > "My team is creating bi-weekly HTML Dumps for all of the wikis, except
> for
> > wikidata as part of the paid API project."
> >
> > I have so many questions:
> >  - What is the "paid API" project? Are we planning to make money out of
> our
> > API? Now are we selling our dumps?
> >  - If so, why is this not communicated before? Why are we kept in the
> dark?
> >  - Does the board know and approve it?
> >  - How is this going to align with our core values like openness and
> > transparency?
> >  - The ticket implicitly says these are going to be stored on AWS ("S3
> > bucket"). Is this thought through? Specially the ethical problems of
> > feeding Jeff Bezos' empire? (If you have seen this episode of Hasan
> > Minhaj's on ethical issues of using AWS [2]). Why can't we do/host this
> on
> > Wikimedia infrastructure? Has this been evaluated?
> >  - Why is the community not consulted about this?
> >
> > Maybe I missed announcements, consultations or anything, forgive me for
> my
> > ignorance. Any pointers is enough. I also understand diversifying our
> > revenue is a good tool for rainy days but a consultation with the
> community
> > wouldn't be too bad.
> >
> > [1]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T254275
> > [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5maXvZ5fyQY
> >
> > Best
> > --
> > Amir (he/him)
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 07:46, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.

> Well, please do not create conspiracy theories...

It's not a conspiracy theory if there is evidence of a conspiracy.

> Actually, as far as I understand my role as an OTRS volunteer - there
> are no any special rules for OTRS except some technical, civility
> aspects and confidentiality of mailing with individuals

No special rules, apart from [list of special rules]?

> Regarding privacy issues - OTRS volunteers can be reported to the Ombudsman
> Commission and during my serving in this Commision there were cases related
> to OTRS.

Indeed - but I'm not asking about just privacy issues.


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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 18:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad
 wrote:

> 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
> I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS 
> agents sign.

So who is able to answer it?

>  I believe OTRS falls under the Communications committee’s purview,

There is nothing sayng so on
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee

> and perhaps T

...nor on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trust_and_Safety

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Ciell Wikipedia]

I agree with Tomek here.

And let me emphasize that not all OTRS admins have access to all queues: in
fact, I think only the admins do. OTRS is a very fast system with queues
per project and again per language, and access is given per queue. A queue
is mostly created per Wikimedia project and language, except for the
subject-related queue like WLX which is just for the competitions, and
maybe chapters and WMF. Most of us only have access to a few queues, if
more then one.
But this access comes with knowledge, so if you are concerned about a
person's knowledge on the subject of the emails they are handling, just
reach out to one of the OTRS admins and express your concerns.

Vriendelijke groet,
Ciell


Op di 7 jul. 2020 om 08:47 schreef Tomasz Ganicz :

> pon., 6 lip 2020 o 19:52 Jonatan Svensson Glad 
> napisał(a):
>
> > Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):
> >
> > 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.  Any and all
> > information on the OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private
> > workspace restricted to Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter
> > representatives, and Volunteer Response Team members, and is is strictly
> > confidential.
> >
> >
> Well, please do not create conspiracy theories... Actually, as far as I
> understand my role as an OTRS volunteer - there are no any special rules
> for OTRS except some technical, civility aspects and confidentiality of
> mailing with individuals - as OTRS volunteers generally should simply
> follow local wiki policies when answering questions, and in case of
> permission cases - general copyright policies of Commons and local wikis.
> WIth copyright policies on Commons - there is a problem of its complexity -
> and there are cases when there is no easy answer. Anyway - copyright
> related decisions of OTRS volunteers on Commons are screened from time to
> time by Commons admins having access to OTRS.
>
> Regarding privacy issues - OTRS volunteers can be reported to the Ombudsman
> Commission and during my serving in this Commision there were cases related
> to OTRS.
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Ad Huikeshoven]

Hi,

Great news: the WMF is going to charge the tech giants for using the API
millions of times each day. Nothing in the free licenses we use obligate us
(that is we in our movement) to provide an API for free as in beer. It is
part of KAAS: Knowledge As A Service, part of the strategic direction
chosen in 2017.

Thanks for your understanding,

Ad Huikeshoven

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:33 PM Amir Sarabadani  wrote:

> Hello,
> Today I stumbled upon this public phabricator ticket [1] created by someone
> from WMF starting with:
> "My team is creating bi-weekly HTML Dumps for all of the wikis, except for
> wikidata as part of the paid API project."
>
> I have so many questions:
>  - What is the "paid API" project? Are we planning to make money out of our
> API? Now are we selling our dumps?
>  - If so, why is this not communicated before? Why are we kept in the dark?
>  - Does the board know and approve it?
>  - How is this going to align with our core values like openness and
> transparency?
>  - The ticket implicitly says these are going to be stored on AWS ("S3
> bucket"). Is this thought through? Specially the ethical problems of
> feeding Jeff Bezos' empire? (If you have seen this episode of Hasan
> Minhaj's on ethical issues of using AWS [2]). Why can't we do/host this on
> Wikimedia infrastructure? Has this been evaluated?
>  - Why is the community not consulted about this?
>
> Maybe I missed announcements, consultations or anything, forgive me for my
> ignorance. Any pointers is enough. I also understand diversifying our
> revenue is a good tool for rainy days but a consultation with the community
> wouldn't be too bad.
>
> [1]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T254275
> [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5maXvZ5fyQY
>
> Best
> --
> Amir (he/him)
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Mohammed Bachounda]

Yes it's - donation not working for me

* Mohammed Bachounda *
Leader Wikimedia Algeria UG
  [image: Thumbnail for version as of 13:48, 19 April 2020]


On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 2:20 PM William Chan  wrote:

> It's don...@wikimedia.org.
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, 19:05 Mohammed Bachounda  wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > Why i'm recieving this message :
> > Message not delivered
> > There was a problem delivering your message to *don...@wikimedia.com*.
> See
> > the technical details below.
> >
> > * Mohammed Bachounda *
> > Leader Wikimedia Algeria UG
> >   [image: Thumbnail for version as of 13:48, 19 April 2020]
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 2:05 AM Joseph Seddon 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > Apologies for the delay. Two overview pages covering the technical and
> > > business side of the project:
> > >
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OKAPI
> > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/OKAPI
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Seddon
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:29 PM Samuel Klein 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > A well-provisioned bulk api has been missing for some time.  Thanks
> for
> > > > working on this.  And clearing up the recommended way for WP content
> to
> > > > appear and be linked in third-party searches and infoboxes is
> important
> > > --
> > > > the sort of thing that an internal policy (and way to subscribe to
> > feeds)
> > > > can help.
> > > >
> > > > I do hope we can host this on WM or openstack infrastructure, and do
> it
> > > in
> > > > a way that expands and improves the solid existing frameworks for
> HTML
> > > > dumps :)
> > > >
> > > > S
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:43 AM Chris Keating <
> > > chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It's interesting that of all the strategy recommendations, two are
> so
> > > far
> > > > > being implemented. One is the Universal Code of Conduct, which has
> at
> > > > least
> > > > > had plenty of discussion and publicity, that even precedes the
> > strategy
> > > > > process. The other is this, which hasn't been particularly
> prominent
> > > > > before, but the WMF seems to have a team working on it just a
> couple
> > of
> > > > > weeks after the final recommendations were published.
> > > > >
> > > > > So while doing this is one of the strategy recommendations, it
> > doesn't
> > > > seem
> > > > > that is is now happening *because of* the strategy
> > recommendations
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:46 AM Gergő Tisza 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > You can find some more discussion at
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration_3/Promote_Sustainability_and_Resilience#Freemium
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I mentioned there, the premise of the recommendation is that
> the
> > > > > > movement needs new revenue sources; in part because the 2030
> > strategy
> > > > is
> > > > > > ambitious and requires a significant increase in resources, in
> part
> > > > > because
> > > > > > our current lack of diversity (about 40% of the movement's budget
> > is
> > > > from
> > > > > > donations through website banners, and another 40% from past
> > banners
> > > > via
> > > > > > email campaigns and such) is a strategic risk because those
> > donations
> > > > can
> > > > > > be disrupted by various social or technical trends. For example,
> > > large
> > > > > tech
> > > > > > companies which are the starting point of people's internet
> > > experience
> > > > > > (such as Facebook or Google) clearly have aspirations to become
> the
> > > end
> > > > > > point as well - they try to ingest and display to their users
> > > directly
> > > > as
> > > > > > much online content as they can. Today, that's not a whole lot of
> > > > content
> > > > > > (you might see fragments of Wikipedia infoboxes in Google's
> > > "knowledge
> > > > > > panel", for example, but nothing resembling an encyclopedia
> > article).
> > > > Ten
> > > > > > years from now, that might be different, and so we need to
> consider
> > > how
> > > > > we
> > > > > > would sustain ourselves in such a world - in terms of revenue,
> and
> > > also
> > > > > in
> > > > > > terms of people (how would new editors join the project, if most
> > > people
> > > > > > interacted with our content not via our website, but interfaces
> > > > provided
> > > > > by
> > > > > > big tech companies where there is no edit button?).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The new API project aims to do that, both in the sense of making
> it
> > > > > > possible to have more equitable arrangements with bulk reusers of
> > our
> > > > > > content (who make lots of money with it), and by making it easier
> > to
> > > > > reuse
> > > > > > content in ways that align with our movement's values (currently,
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > > reuse Wikipedia content in your own 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[William Chan]

It's don...@wikimedia.org.

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, 19:05 Mohammed Bachounda  wrote:

> Hello,
> Why i'm recieving this message :
> Message not delivered
> There was a problem delivering your message to *don...@wikimedia.com*. See
> the technical details below.
>
> * Mohammed Bachounda *
> Leader Wikimedia Algeria UG
>   [image: Thumbnail for version as of 13:48, 19 April 2020]
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 2:05 AM Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Apologies for the delay. Two overview pages covering the technical and
> > business side of the project:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OKAPI
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/OKAPI
> >
> > Regards
> > Seddon
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:29 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
> >
> > > A well-provisioned bulk api has been missing for some time.  Thanks for
> > > working on this.  And clearing up the recommended way for WP content to
> > > appear and be linked in third-party searches and infoboxes is important
> > --
> > > the sort of thing that an internal policy (and way to subscribe to
> feeds)
> > > can help.
> > >
> > > I do hope we can host this on WM or openstack infrastructure, and do it
> > in
> > > a way that expands and improves the solid existing frameworks for HTML
> > > dumps :)
> > >
> > > S
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:43 AM Chris Keating <
> > chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's interesting that of all the strategy recommendations, two are so
> > far
> > > > being implemented. One is the Universal Code of Conduct, which has at
> > > least
> > > > had plenty of discussion and publicity, that even precedes the
> strategy
> > > > process. The other is this, which hasn't been particularly prominent
> > > > before, but the WMF seems to have a team working on it just a couple
> of
> > > > weeks after the final recommendations were published.
> > > >
> > > > So while doing this is one of the strategy recommendations, it
> doesn't
> > > seem
> > > > that is is now happening *because of* the strategy
> recommendations
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:46 AM Gergő Tisza 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You can find some more discussion at
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration_3/Promote_Sustainability_and_Resilience#Freemium
> > > > >
> > > > > As I mentioned there, the premise of the recommendation is that the
> > > > > movement needs new revenue sources; in part because the 2030
> strategy
> > > is
> > > > > ambitious and requires a significant increase in resources, in part
> > > > because
> > > > > our current lack of diversity (about 40% of the movement's budget
> is
> > > from
> > > > > donations through website banners, and another 40% from past
> banners
> > > via
> > > > > email campaigns and such) is a strategic risk because those
> donations
> > > can
> > > > > be disrupted by various social or technical trends. For example,
> > large
> > > > tech
> > > > > companies which are the starting point of people's internet
> > experience
> > > > > (such as Facebook or Google) clearly have aspirations to become the
> > end
> > > > > point as well - they try to ingest and display to their users
> > directly
> > > as
> > > > > much online content as they can. Today, that's not a whole lot of
> > > content
> > > > > (you might see fragments of Wikipedia infoboxes in Google's
> > "knowledge
> > > > > panel", for example, but nothing resembling an encyclopedia
> article).
> > > Ten
> > > > > years from now, that might be different, and so we need to consider
> > how
> > > > we
> > > > > would sustain ourselves in such a world - in terms of revenue, and
> > also
> > > > in
> > > > > terms of people (how would new editors join the project, if most
> > people
> > > > > interacted with our content not via our website, but interfaces
> > > provided
> > > > by
> > > > > big tech companies where there is no edit button?).
> > > > >
> > > > > The new API project aims to do that, both in the sense of making it
> > > > > possible to have more equitable arrangements with bulk reusers of
> our
> > > > > content (who make lots of money with it), and by making it easier
> to
> > > > reuse
> > > > > content in ways that align with our movement's values (currently,
> if
> > > you
> > > > > reuse Wikipedia content in your own website or application, and
> want
> > to
> > > > > provide your users with information about the licensing or
> provenance
> > > of
> > > > > that content, or allow them to contribute, the tools we provide for
> > > that
> > > > > are third rate at best). As the recommendation mentions, erecting
> > > > > unintentional barriers to small-scale or non-commercial reusers was
> > > very
> > > > > much a concern, and I'm sure much care will be taken during
> > > > implementation
> > > > > to avoid it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrt transparency, I agree 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Mohammed Bachounda]

Hello,
Why i'm recieving this message :
Message not delivered
There was a problem delivering your message to *don...@wikimedia.com*. See
the technical details below.

* Mohammed Bachounda *
Leader Wikimedia Algeria UG
  [image: Thumbnail for version as of 13:48, 19 April 2020]


On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 2:05 AM Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> Apologies for the delay. Two overview pages covering the technical and
> business side of the project:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OKAPI
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/OKAPI
>
> Regards
> Seddon
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:29 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > A well-provisioned bulk api has been missing for some time.  Thanks for
> > working on this.  And clearing up the recommended way for WP content to
> > appear and be linked in third-party searches and infoboxes is important
> --
> > the sort of thing that an internal policy (and way to subscribe to feeds)
> > can help.
> >
> > I do hope we can host this on WM or openstack infrastructure, and do it
> in
> > a way that expands and improves the solid existing frameworks for HTML
> > dumps :)
> >
> > S
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:43 AM Chris Keating <
> chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It's interesting that of all the strategy recommendations, two are so
> far
> > > being implemented. One is the Universal Code of Conduct, which has at
> > least
> > > had plenty of discussion and publicity, that even precedes the strategy
> > > process. The other is this, which hasn't been particularly prominent
> > > before, but the WMF seems to have a team working on it just a couple of
> > > weeks after the final recommendations were published.
> > >
> > > So while doing this is one of the strategy recommendations, it doesn't
> > seem
> > > that is is now happening *because of* the strategy recommendations
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:46 AM Gergő Tisza  wrote:
> > >
> > > > You can find some more discussion at
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration_3/Promote_Sustainability_and_Resilience#Freemium
> > > >
> > > > As I mentioned there, the premise of the recommendation is that the
> > > > movement needs new revenue sources; in part because the 2030 strategy
> > is
> > > > ambitious and requires a significant increase in resources, in part
> > > because
> > > > our current lack of diversity (about 40% of the movement's budget is
> > from
> > > > donations through website banners, and another 40% from past banners
> > via
> > > > email campaigns and such) is a strategic risk because those donations
> > can
> > > > be disrupted by various social or technical trends. For example,
> large
> > > tech
> > > > companies which are the starting point of people's internet
> experience
> > > > (such as Facebook or Google) clearly have aspirations to become the
> end
> > > > point as well - they try to ingest and display to their users
> directly
> > as
> > > > much online content as they can. Today, that's not a whole lot of
> > content
> > > > (you might see fragments of Wikipedia infoboxes in Google's
> "knowledge
> > > > panel", for example, but nothing resembling an encyclopedia article).
> > Ten
> > > > years from now, that might be different, and so we need to consider
> how
> > > we
> > > > would sustain ourselves in such a world - in terms of revenue, and
> also
> > > in
> > > > terms of people (how would new editors join the project, if most
> people
> > > > interacted with our content not via our website, but interfaces
> > provided
> > > by
> > > > big tech companies where there is no edit button?).
> > > >
> > > > The new API project aims to do that, both in the sense of making it
> > > > possible to have more equitable arrangements with bulk reusers of our
> > > > content (who make lots of money with it), and by making it easier to
> > > reuse
> > > > content in ways that align with our movement's values (currently, if
> > you
> > > > reuse Wikipedia content in your own website or application, and want
> to
> > > > provide your users with information about the licensing or provenance
> > of
> > > > that content, or allow them to contribute, the tools we provide for
> > that
> > > > are third rate at best). As the recommendation mentions, erecting
> > > > unintentional barriers to small-scale or non-commercial reusers was
> > very
> > > > much a concern, and I'm sure much care will be taken during
> > > implementation
> > > > to avoid it.
> > > >
> > > > Wrt transparency, I agree this was communicated less clearly than
> > ideal,
> > > > but from the Wikimedia Foundation's point of view, it can be hard to
> > know
> > > > when to consult the community and to what extent (churning out so
> much
> > > > information that few volunteers can keep up with it can be a problem
> > too;
> > > > arguably early phases of the strategy process suffered from