Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

[Nathan]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

>
>
> Re: http://blog.bitpay.com/2012/11/donate-to-wikipedia-with-bitcoin.html
>
> I'm not sure I'm following all of this correctly. I thought the idea was
> that BitPay would exchange Bitcoins for USDs and then donate the USDs to
> the Wikimedia Foundation. Why would that require the Wikimedia Foundation
> being in control of whatever account is used to transfer the funds? Isn't
> the merchant account simply a means of transferring USDs? I'm lost. :-(
>
> I think Andrew makes a compelling argument, though it's difficult to be
> sure when the implementation details are not entirely clear.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
I think the problem is that Bitpay doesn't appear to be a charity.  They
are accepting bitcoins and paying dollars; without a lot of transparency
that hasn't been described yet in this thread, there's no way to know they
aren't using the Wikimedia marks to support speculating in the value of
bitcoins. We allow and encourage commercial reuse of most Wikimedia
content, but the same isn't true of Wikimedia trademarks. I'm not against
Bitpay making a profit, I just don't think they should be able to advertise
for Wikipedia donations to pad their bottom line.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amendment would affect Wikimedia projects

[Samuel Klein]

I would also reach out to Access. ( https://www.accessnow.org/ )  They are
generally interested in this work globally.


On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Ivan Martínez  wrote:

> Hi Samuel. I don't know if there's some movement. I contacted to Electronic
> Frontier Foundation for this. Do you have another suggestion?
> Best regards.
>
>
> 2013/12/9 Samuel Klein 
>
> > Interesting.  Thank you for taking a public stand and for keeping us
> > informed.  Is there any international movement so far to support the
> > advocates in Mexico that are arguing against this amendment?
> >
> > Sam.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Ivan Martínez  wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all:
> > >
> > > A proposed amendment to the Industrial Property Law, Federal Law on
> > > Copyright and the Federal Penal Code, recently presented at the Chamber
> > of
> > > Deputies of Mexico, very similar to SOPA and the Sinde Law in Spain,
> > would
> > > affect the functioning of the Wikimedia projects in Mexico.
> > >
> > > Our chapter decided to issue a position that can be found at the
> > following
> > > link:
> > >
> > > http://ow.ly/rBKx6
> > >
> > > This document was sent to the email address of the legislators who are
> > > driving this proposal, deputies Héctor Gutiérrez and Aurora Ugalde, no
> > > response so far. If this proposal in advance approval, our chapter
> would
> > > evaluate what actions could be taken.
> > >
> > > Best regards.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Atentamente:Iván MartínezPresidenteWikimedia México A.C.wikimedia.mx
> > > Imagina un mundo en donde cada persona del
> planeta
> > > pueda tener acceso libre a la suma total del conocimiento humano. Eso
> es
> > lo
> > > que estamos haciendo . *
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529
> 4266
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Atentamente:Iván MartínezPresidenteWikimedia México A.C.wikimedia.mx
> Imagina un mundo en donde cada persona del planeta
> pueda tener acceso libre a la suma total del conocimiento humano. Eso es lo
> que estamos haciendo . *
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

[MZMcBride]

Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
>Andrew Bogott wrote:
>> So, we have a problem, and then we have an already-implemented
>> solution... what is left for anyone to do but dust off their hands and
>> go to lunch?  If Bitpay has already solved the exact problem that we're
>> discussion, why would the foundation spend a nickel duplicating their
>>work?
>
>There are, I believe, several problem with that solution: (1) Bitpay
>seems to have created that merchant account without ever discussing this
>with the Foundation, (2) the account is not owned by the Foundation, and
>the Foundation does not have any influence over it at the moment, (3)
>given choice, the Foundation might have decided to use the services of
>their competitor (for whatever reasons).

Re: http://blog.bitpay.com/2012/11/donate-to-wikipedia-with-bitcoin.html

I'm not sure I'm following all of this correctly. I thought the idea was
that BitPay would exchange Bitcoins for USDs and then donate the USDs to
the Wikimedia Foundation. Why would that require the Wikimedia Foundation
being in control of whatever account is used to transfer the funds? Isn't
the merchant account simply a means of transferring USDs? I'm lost. :-(

I think Andrew makes a compelling argument, though it's difficult to be
sure when the implementation details are not entirely clear.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

[phoebe ayers]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> On 12 December 2013 19:40, phoebe ayers  wrote:
>
>> With a nod to Andy's comment, as a
>> community I think we may want to review our progress in the last few
>> years on the BLP issue, and have a broad community consultation about
>> where we are still falling short and ideas for going forward, given
>> our constraints and changing environment of readers and editors.
>
> I didn't make a comment; I requested information:
>
> "Please also provide a link to the consultation you carried out
>  with the community, before making this change. I seem to have
>  missed it."
>
> Oddly, I seem to have missed the response, also.

Well, with such a pointed comment, I assumed you were trying to make a
point about the value of community consultations, so that's what I
responded to.

As Maria noted, this was prompted by a community request on the board
noticeboard, which of course anyone is welcome to participate in. And
as I noted, we saw a need to clarify what we intended in the earlier
resolution -- not something that can really be determined by community
consensus. So no, we didn't have a broad community consultation on
this particular amendment, though I also don't think it was out of the
blue; there have been many related discussions on Commons and
Wikipedia over the years.

I was recently reminded by someone that we *did* have a general
community consultation on the BLP issue as part of the strategy
project -- there's still good info (and some broad recommendations to
the board) here, which are worth reviewing if the topic is of
interest: https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People

best,
Phoebe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amendment would affect Wikimedia projects

[Ivan Martínez]

Hi Samuel. I don't know if there's some movement. I contacted to Electronic
Frontier Foundation for this. Do you have another suggestion?
Best regards.


2013/12/9 Samuel Klein 

> Interesting.  Thank you for taking a public stand and for keeping us
> informed.  Is there any international movement so far to support the
> advocates in Mexico that are arguing against this amendment?
>
> Sam.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Ivan Martínez  wrote:
>
> > Dear all:
> >
> > A proposed amendment to the Industrial Property Law, Federal Law on
> > Copyright and the Federal Penal Code, recently presented at the Chamber
> of
> > Deputies of Mexico, very similar to SOPA and the Sinde Law in Spain,
> would
> > affect the functioning of the Wikimedia projects in Mexico.
> >
> > Our chapter decided to issue a position that can be found at the
> following
> > link:
> >
> > http://ow.ly/rBKx6
> >
> > This document was sent to the email address of the legislators who are
> > driving this proposal, deputies Héctor Gutiérrez and Aurora Ugalde, no
> > response so far. If this proposal in advance approval, our chapter would
> > evaluate what actions could be taken.
> >
> > Best regards.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Atentamente:Iván MartínezPresidenteWikimedia México A.C.wikimedia.mx
> > Imagina un mundo en donde cada persona del planeta
> > pueda tener acceso libre a la suma total del conocimiento humano. Eso es
> lo
> > que estamos haciendo . *
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 








*Atentamente:Iván MartínezPresidenteWikimedia México A.C.wikimedia.mx
Imagina un mundo en donde cada persona del planeta
pueda tener acceso libre a la suma total del conocimiento humano. Eso es lo
que estamos haciendo . *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

[Tomasz W. Kozlowski]

Andrew Bogott wrote:

So, we have a problem, and then we have an already-implemented 
solution... what is left for anyone to do but dust off their hands and 
go to lunch?  If Bitpay has already solved the exact problem that we're 
discussion, why would the foundation spend a nickel duplicating their work?


There are, I believe, several problem with that solution: (1) Bitpay 
seems to have created that merchant account without ever discussing this 
with the Foundation, (2) the account is not owned by the Foundation, and 
the Foundation does not have any influence over it at the moment, (3) 
given choice, the Foundation might have decided to use the services of 
their competitor (for whatever reasons).


That's just off the top of my head, but I'm sure other people (not to 
mention Foundation lawyers!) can think of other things.


  Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

[Peter Coombe]

On 13 December 2013 14:00, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 13 December 2013 11:43, Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
> > Who's to say if the work involved in accepting bitcoins, monitoring
> > transactions, converting them, etc. will be worth the actual donations we
> > receive in bitcoin? Developing and maintaining payments systems doesn't
> > come for free. Fundraising and finance staff at WMF work extremely hard
> to
> > keep these systems running smoothly, and I for one don't think it's worth
> > adding yet another potential system to build/maintain just to placate
> > bitcoin devotees who want us to help promote their libertarian fantasy
> > project.
>
>
> This is probably the key point: will it be worth the resources? How do
> comparable charities that accept Bitcoin do?
>
> I'm sceptical about Bitcoin in general, but if it was worth it, then sure.
>
> (If you have reliable payment conversion, the acceptance bit is easy.
> Hardest bit is someone to supply reliable and trustworthy conversion
> from Bitcoins to dollars. e.g. Mt. Gox wouldn't pass the sniff test
> IMO. Some Bitcoin operations are *terrifyingly* naive, as if
> financial-quality computer system reliability had never been thought
> of.)
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>

Anecdotally:

From Reddit in March this year (not sure whether the situation has changed
or not)
"So far we're spending more money on accountants handling the non-trivial
reconciliation of our BTC transactions than revenue we're making in
Bitcoin, haha. Hopefully it will get better."
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/19t3uq/hey_rbitcoin_you_asked_for_some_stats/


From the Humble Indie Bundle (a collection of indie computer games)
"It [bitcoin] represents less than 0.1% of our sales for Humble Indie
Bundle 8, which is pretty surprising for me"
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1fex7h/were_humble_indie_bundle_8_creators_of_thomas_was/ca9l01t


Peter / the wub
(speaking in a strictly personal capacity)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

[Andrew Bogott]

I have no real opinion about the merits of bitcoin.  But, I'm 
nevertheless amused and puzzled by this discussion, as I will illustrate 
with a little creative editing:


On 12/10/13 2:58 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
...does the Foundation intend to accept Bitcoin as a donation method 
any time soon? Does the Foundation realize that the payment processing 
company Bitpay has kindly set up a merchant account that is 
transferring money to the WMF every day?
So, we have a problem, and then we have an already-implemented 
solution... what is left for anyone to do but dust off their hands and 
go to lunch?  If Bitpay has already solved the exact problem that we're 
discussion, why would the foundation spend a nickel duplicating their work?


-A


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

[David Gerard]

On 13 December 2013 11:43, Steven Walling  wrote:

> Who's to say if the work involved in accepting bitcoins, monitoring
> transactions, converting them, etc. will be worth the actual donations we
> receive in bitcoin? Developing and maintaining payments systems doesn't
> come for free. Fundraising and finance staff at WMF work extremely hard to
> keep these systems running smoothly, and I for one don't think it's worth
> adding yet another potential system to build/maintain just to placate
> bitcoin devotees who want us to help promote their libertarian fantasy
> project.


This is probably the key point: will it be worth the resources? How do
comparable charities that accept Bitcoin do?

I'm sceptical about Bitcoin in general, but if it was worth it, then sure.

(If you have reliable payment conversion, the acceptance bit is easy.
Hardest bit is someone to supply reliable and trustworthy conversion
from Bitcoins to dollars. e.g. Mt. Gox wouldn't pass the sniff test
IMO. Some Bitcoin operations are *terrifyingly* naive, as if
financial-quality computer system reliability had never been thought
of.)


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

[Tomasz W. Kozlowski]

Steven Walling wrote:


Uh... except that because Bitcoin is not a regulated currency, it's value
has the potential to fluctuate wildly, and seems to have done so since it
attracts speculators of all crazy sorts. Seems pretty fuckin risky to me.


I see no reason why the fluctuation of Bitcoin would be of any 
significance for the decision of accepting it as a donation method or 
not, especially if you use same-day exchange systems. In the end, you 
cannot loose more money than you gain if you accept Bitcoin; even if its 
value drops significantly, it will still be more money than if you 
didn't accept it.


From where I stand, there is very little difference between Bitcoin and 
regulated currencies, except perhaps the fluctuation rate (as in 
quickness); take the Argentine peso, the Brazilian real, or the 
Zimbabwean dollar as examples that even government-backed currencies can 
fluctuate (or, more precisely, lose in value) in relatively short periods.


  Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

[Steven Walling]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:17 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> As Peter just said, there is no risk if WMF converts bitcoin donations to
> USD immediately.
>

Uh... except that because Bitcoin is not a regulated currency, it's value
has the potential to fluctuate wildly, and seems to have done so since it
attracts speculators of all crazy sorts. Seems pretty fuckin risky to me.

Who's to say if the work involved in accepting bitcoins, monitoring
transactions, converting them, etc. will be worth the actual donations we
receive in bitcoin? Developing and maintaining payments systems doesn't
come for free. Fundraising and finance staff at WMF work extremely hard to
keep these systems running smoothly, and I for one don't think it's worth
adding yet another potential system to build/maintain just to placate
bitcoin devotees who want us to help promote their libertarian fantasy
project.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Update on community advocacy & liaison work

[Samuel Klein]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> I am very glad to see this initiative.
>

Seconded.  Thank you, Erik, for the early notice.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Update on community advocacy & liaison work

[Anders Wennersten]

I am very glad to see this initiative.

A strong user involvement is and has always been critical for succesful 
developement and deployment of user oriented software


And here I see this now is set up in a structured way for the important 
work being done for WMF engineering work.


I am looking forward to follow the work of the new Director of Community 
Engagement and the community members groups he/she will cooperate with


Anders



Erik Moeller skrev 2013-12-13 08:40:

FYI :)


-- Forwarded message --
From: Erik Moeller 
Date: Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:40 PM
Subject: Update on community advocacy & liaison work
To: All Wikimedia Foundation staff & contractors

Hi all,

As many of you know, we recently brought on board a team of community
members to support the development and rollout of mission-critical WMF
projects like VisualEditor and Flow. To-date, this work has been
coordinated by Philippe Beaudette (reporting to James Forrester for
this purpose), with the community liaisons maintaining a dotted-line
reporting relationship to him while being hired by
engineering/product. In addition, the Community Advocacy team has made
available several of its staff members to work and partner on a
day-to-day basis with the liaisons.

What we’ve learned so far includes:

- Community engagement continues to be critical for successful
development and deployment of products with a strong impact on
community interactions. Not all products have such an impact -- e.g.
improvements to the mobile reading experience or mobile apps don’t
affect the experience of content authors directly nearly as much. In
other cases (e.g. VisualEditor) the impact is huge and the
coordination and communication requirements can be very significant.

- We need to start the process as early as possible - community
engagement isn't something that can just be done at the tail end to
support a rollout. Liaison work includes on-wiki participation in
discussions; organizing roundtables, IRC sessions, feedback and
brainstorming pages, etc. The earlier, the better -- this helps
surface likely points of contention, empowering Product Managers to
better understand the high priority needs and wants from the
community, as well as the cost of a change (how difficult will it be
to make the change, and what negative side effects may it have?).

- Product Managers and Community Liaisons need to work closely
together and see each other as being on the same team. While a typical
liaison likely will support multiple projects, just like designers,
liaisons work best when they develop a deep understanding for the
needs of one or two teams and are in active partnership with the
relevant PM. The PM and Community Liaison should be collaborating on a
day-to-day basis.

- There are other classes of community-related work that need to be
appropriately resourced, but are less directly relevant to product
development. This includes: emergency and crisis management and
response, support for policy-related RFCs, training for OTRS agents,
organizing of visits of key functionaries and committees, etc.

- Learning the lessons from the existence of a Community Department,
we don't view "Community" as a function that can be owned, controlled
or managed in a single department -- each department needs to be
supported by community expertise in its day-to-day work, partnering
closely with other team members.

Consistent with that, after careful discussion, we have decided to
create a new leadership function, Director of Community Engagement
(Product), reporting to me (as VP Product) and partnering closely with
Howie and individual Product Managers. The Director of Community
Engagement (Product) will be responsible for managing community
liaisons (staff or contractors) who directly support product
development.

Once this Director is hired and on-boarded, the Community Advocacy
team currently reporting to Philippe will re-focus its energy on some
of the aforementioned non-product matters. The community liaison team
will at that point move to the new Director, and we will staff up as
needed. We will still intersect on projects such as election support
or policy implementation.

I’m not currently considering merging this group with the "Engineering
Community Team" under Sumana Harihareswara’s leadership. That team is
focused on engaging volunteer developers who contribute to MediaWiki,
and while there is some overlap, I consider the goals and workflows to
be pretty distinct. That said, I expect the two teams to work closely
together in practice, with folks like Andre Klapper (Bug Wrangler)
acting at the intersection between the two teams.

I want to thank Geoff, Philippe and the Community Advocacy team for
all their support bootstrapping the liaison team and partnering with
us on key product roll-outs, on very short notice. It’s been
absolutely invaluable. I’m also grateful for the continuation of this
partnership until we fill the new Director-level role, and for hel