Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?
Hi! Ehm, that looks great, but I have no idea what a project is and how to I join? The talk page on the Edit_Review_Improvements has just some suggestions? How is communication being done here? Sorry if this is obvious. Mitar On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Brill Lyle wrote: > Saw this on the latest issue of Tech News ( > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News/2016/26). Thought it might be > interest as it's directly related to this thread. > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_Review_Improvements > > see also: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/edit-review-improvements/ > > @Mitar -- you might want to volunteer to participate in this process, as > you have a lot of suggestions. I think the first way into the project is > via the Talk page, though :-) > > - Erika > > > *Erika Herzog* > Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>* > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?
roducing milk in their area. Or maybe a professor wants to determine which milk company the school should go to for a trip and would like to see which are around. In fact, the requirement for notability to me means that I have to create great statements about this company. Why it is important. Why it is the best. Why it should be included. If, on the other hand, the article was plain and simple, this would be easier. And then later on those students can come to the Wikipedia article about a company they visited and add a photo of it to the article, and explain what they learned during the visit about the history of the company. Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?
Hi! On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Vi to wrote: > My activity at en.wiki only deals with crosswiki abuse and lta > "management". So don't be afraid of me but frainkly I don't find your > startup incubator to be notable. In other words I don't find it to be > something I expect to find on an encyclopedia. He he. No, the startup incubator is in the same building, but one floor higher. :-) http://hekovnik.com/ On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Brill Lyle wrote: > Okay, I did a pretty thorough scrub and reworking of the article. I added > the logo as well as moved it to the main space. As it stood the article > needed help but of course that's typical of new articles. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poligon_Creative_Centre Wow! This is amazing! Thank you so much! The article is alive and so much better! Hm, but while I agree that the article has not been of high quality from the start, I am really not sure if the best approach was for it to be deleted. What would be a better process in such cases? Why articles are not asked to be deleted with more time? My article was speedy deleted based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7 What I do not understand is why there is a speedy deletion if article does not explain why the subject of the article is not significant, instead of deletion if article's subject is not significant? Because the first thing could be improved, it is a content issue? Anyway, what is the process to improve this process? Or should we just leave it be and everything is great? Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?
Hi! This is restored version of the article with even more references (11) than at the time of deletion (8): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mitar/Poligon Mitar On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Pine W wrote: > A number of us are currently discussing this situation on IRC. (: I believe > that the immediate concern is being addressed, and we are also discussing > ways of improving the deletion process on ENWP. > > Pine > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:21 PM, carl hansen > wrote: > >> Mitar, >> To get a deleted article back, ask an "Administrator" to move it to your >> User_page draft >> space so you can get your text/references . The text is still in the >> system, just not accessible to public. There should be no >> problem. You could even ask the Administrator who deleted it, via Talk page >> , or make request at >> Wikipedia:Community_portal >> ___ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?
Hi! Thanks you for all the responses. It is really great to see this various explanations. On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 4:27 PM, John wrote: > If we do not have checks and balances in place wikipedia will quickly get > overrun with articles on everyone and everything to ever exist regardless > of the actual notability of the person/place/thing/event. Hm, while I understand the goal of high quality content, I do not understand why this has to be so black and white? Existence vs. non-existence? Why not introducing a third level of content, so that we would have something like: - encyclopedic article in the main namespace - non-encyclopedic draft/stub/sandbox article in the same main namespace - deleted articles in a special namespace There could be a special very small set of really deleted articles for legal reasons. The main idea I would propose is that all of those articles should be editable. Even if article is deleted, people should be able to continue editing it, it should just be made that robots cannot index them, for example, and that they are under some special namespace. The reason is that it is much easier if you can edit it and improve it and then through time maybe things change, maybe somebody becomes notable through time and their content can be brought back. The same for so-called non-encyclopedic content which do not merit entry by current standards. Some of those should be kept with clear visual tags that content is not yet up to the standard of Wikipedia. We could even make it so that you first get an full overlay warning and you have to click through to get to the content. I think the whole issue of inclusionists and deletionists is so problematic because we do not step back and observe that there could be ways to address both concerns with slight changes to the process, and probably small technical changes. It is really not necessary to be introducing artificial scarcity. From what I read this has been going on from 2008 at least, when Paul Graham included to fix this among his startup ideas: http://old.ycombinator.com/ideas.html This is 8 years ago. I might really do not understand something here, but what is the plan to solve this problem? Are we just waiting for something to happen? Why are we not discussing how to find a solution which would find a consensus in the community? In 8 years there should really already be a solution? So, what are issues people have with my proposal above? Why would not this satisfy both groups? On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Brill Lyle wrote: > Mitar is not being specific about the entry and seems more into discussing > the process. Oh, I would of course like that we discuss the particular article and get feedback on it, positive or negative. Anything helps. And I can learn more. I just do not want us to digress from the topic which for me is more even important: how to improve this experience for everyone in the future as well. I will survive. But I am a privileged white male with a good grasp of technology who experienced various online communities through years. But what about others? What about people who might have less command of the English language and would have issues discussing all this through? Who do not have so much time to discuss things through? What we will do about that? Maybe I should not care and I should just try to address the issues with my article and move on. But when will then anything change? On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Brill Lyle wrote: > Gadzooks! The comments you made about friendly editors to a large community > of Wikipedia editors, maybe re-think saying that. I'm having a hard time > getting past these comments. *I* am a friendly editor, and am actually able > to help you. Oh, sorry. I didn't mean it like that. I more than appreciate all the help and responses I am getting here. What I mean is that I would hope that it is possible to edit the Wikipedia without knowing editors and admins individually. But this would probably mean even more bureaucratic process, so maybe it is even better like this. Personally, I believe all editors are good people, with a common goal, it seems we just disagree sometimes, but this probably also comes from dissymmetry of information about particular things. Mine about Wikipedia rules, theirs about a particular topic. Addressing this dissymmetry is done through discussions. I see how that comment might offended. Sorry again. > But you have basically said you have too much of a life to > engage, IRC is HARD, etc. Huh. I am trying to present this as an occasional editor. Yes, one solution to issues I have is to get to know Wikipedia rules and community more, to get more engaged and integrated. This is a completely valid approach. But I wonder, is there an alternative path. What about occasional editor who might not have resources to embark on this path. Personally, it seems, I am already walking it. Yes, IRC is doable, of
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?
Hi! On Twitter I was pointed to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia This is amazing. I think John Oliver should make a segment "Wikipedia Deletionism - how is this still a thing?" I mean, is this a failure of Wikipedia community governance? Reading about this seems deletionists are just a vocal minority who benefit from the fact that deletion is much stronger action than keeping things. Destruction is always easier than creation. There are 1536 inclusionists just on English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians And 280 deletionists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deletionist_Wikipedians So, how is this still a thing? How can this be put to a vote and finally move on? What is Wikipedia's governance process here? Does Wikipedia has something like https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ ? Mitar On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Mitar wrote: > Hi! > > Thank you for your responses. > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Brill Lyle wrote: >> Please include your user name and the name of the article you were working >> on. Without any context it's impossible to help you. Thankfully I was able >> to dig and find the page, etc. But include identifying info if you want >> help / resolution. > > I didn't want to include this information because I didn't want to > make it about my issue in particular. I wanted to give feedback and > discuss principles behind my experience. > > I otherwise had good experience editing Wikipedia. Other editors were > constructive and often with patience helped me learn how to improve > the content and related rules of Wikipedia, which also seemed > reasonable. But this rule I do not get and cannot relate to, thus I am > bringing it here. > > I read that Wikipedia is trying hard to get new editors and this is > why I am sharing this story here. Because from all my experience this > one is the most problematic. It really pushes you off. > > And it is pretty reasonable that it is problematic. Now that most > clearly "notable" articles have been already written the one which are > left will be increasingly more and more in the "gray zone". And > increasingly local, specialized, where such mistakes might be common. > > Maybe this policy for notability and significance had its historic > place. It focused the community on the core set of articles, improving > the quality of existing articles and created a name for Wikipedia. But > I think maybe it is time that it is relaxed and a new level of > articles is invited in. As I said, a warning could be used to tell > readers that they are reading such a new article. > > (Oh, and please improve talk pages, that way of communicating is also > a mess, but that one I can understand, it is a technical legacy. It is > cumbersome, but I can understand it. But it does influence other > issues then, like this one when you have to discuss something about > Wikipedia. Why Wikipedia does not simply use some issue-management > system where people could be opening issues for articles and other > people and have conversation through that? It would also allow much > better statistics of how many issues were satisfactory resolved, for > example, for all sides.) > >> Discussion (with reason): >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG#Please_remove_the_tag_from_Poligon_page > > Yes, it is clear that the editor who deleted it does not understand > local importance of the article. They could read the news articles I > cited and might get a better picture. > > The issue is here that while new editors can edit pages, see tags to > improve sources and so on, that is all helpful. But once a page is > deleted, they are pushed off and cannot do anything anymore. I just > started with the article. I could improve it through time, get more > information in why it is important and so on. But once it is deleted > nothing of this is not possible. I have to go around and find ways how > to object to this, and I have no idea how to do that. (This is also > why I am writing to such general list like this.) > >> I don't have rights to view the deleted article, but if someone who does >> moves it to your sandbox or a draft space you could work on it there, and I >> would be happy to take a quick look at it / try to help. > > But the problem is systemic. It does not matter if we resolve it for > this particular page. Also, if a page is in my sandbox then it is only > on me to fix it and improve it. If it is its dedicated namespace then > others can help edit it because they can find it. This is the whole > power of Wikipedia, that it is not that one person has to write the > whole article, but that
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?
t in your Sandbox and make sure > you have at least 5 (or even 10) very solid citations. I had citations. It seems it was not enough. > Have a friendly editor take a look at the article before attempting to move > it to the main > space. Friendly editor? How am I supposed to find one? I do not want to be harsh, but I am here to write content, not to mingle with other editors and socialize. I have enough other things in my life. I can understand that for some editors this is their online social space/forum and they know each other. But for me is something where I get to occasionally, I want to fix a thing I care about, and I move on. If I find trash on the floor I pick it up and carry it to the nearest thrash can. I do not want to interact with city utilities system or talk to supervisors. (BTW, talking to a friendly editor comes back to the issue of really strange talk pages. Probably all you got used to them, but they are really a mess.) > It is critical you use the citations to establish notability. Not > everything is notable, and especially if the Wiki-en audience isn't > knowledgeable of the subject matter, it's even more important. I did that. Of course, citations were to Slovenian news articles in Slovenian, only one was in English. And this is why I started the Wikipedia article. To bring more international exposure to a local thing. > but their goal is to "protect" Wiki content, so Hm, protect from what? Existence? If content is true, why it needs protection? If content is not yet complete, guide it to being complete. > The IRC help channel ( > http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help) is also a great > resource -- especially if it's a time zone issue. BTW, you do realize that many of new people online and potential new editors are not familiar with IRC? Mailing list are already On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 1:11 AM, carl hansen wrote: > You have been hit by crossfire in the long running Inclusionist vs. > Deletionist war. Instead of waging war, could we open some discussion about middle group solutions? For example, what is wrong with having such pages tagged with "not an encyclopedia-grade article, possible lacking notability and/or significance" and move on? And then we can discuss the merits of that tag being applied to a particular article. Which is much less new-editor-scary than a warning "page is nominated for speedy deletion" and bam, deleted. Has this ever been put up for a vote by the community? Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
[Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?
ou will have. Invite people to write about fiction they love, local spaces, local events, everything. If it is true, if it has a form of an encyclopedia article, why it could not exist? We could create special tags instead deletion or a warning at the top of the article: "Warning: article has a small readerbase and might lack in quality. Be extra wary of potential untruths and errors in the article." Done. Wikipedia grows, Wikipedia is happy, and new editors do not get frustrated. So simple. Yes, people will say. But we are building encyclopedia. Encyclopedia has to have only notable entries. Yes. In 20st century and before. Maybe it is time we reinvent encyclopedia? And maybe we are doing more than just encyclopedia, but "a collaborative source of all human knowledge", in a form of encyclopedia. I just hope this rule does not exist only so that Wikia has a business model. You remove pages from Wikipedia so that people have to go to Wikia. Why? Why introducing artificial scarcity? Without such rules to back them up, trigger happy editors would not be deleting articles. Instead, editors like me would have time and opportunity to improve them, and articles might through time be proven significant because people would stumble upon them and you would see stats of readerbase. Now, nobody can know how many readers are in fact searching for that article on Google but cannot find it. I know it is impossible to change anything in how Wikipedia operates. It is just too big and has too big momentum in a way it is already doing things. But please please consider changing this rules. No need for deletion. Just mark them. Grey them out. Let's have another state between "existing" and "non-existing". Like "articles in limbo". They are not part of encyclopedia, but they are part of human knowledge. We are unsure about them. Thanks for your attention, to those who managed to read through my long rant. Sorry. Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
Hi! I think this conversation is diverging from the question of the *service* we should offer to others to licensing of the content. Licensing does not say anything about the service one should offer for the content. Any service, any API, is more or less something one does extra on top of the licensing requirements. We could just offer dumps of data and this is it. But if we offer more, some specialized services, uptime and availability and so on, that does not have much with the licensing of the content. That discussion should thus be on some other layer. Investigating licensing will not give us much insight into the question if we should go into the business of offering data services or not. Mitar On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Isaac David > wrote: >> >> Le lun. 18 janv. 2016 à 3:17, Andrea Zanni a >> écrit : >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:59 AM, David Goodman wrote: >>> >>>> Nor am I concerned that our information might be used by people who >>>> oppose >>>> our >>>> principles. We ask just the same of our contributors--that the >>>> information >>>> they contribute may be used for ''any'' purpose. >>>> >>> >>> >>> My concern is when our CC-BY-SA (or CC0) user-generated information is not >>> shared-alike AND it is a cost for the movement (ie a cost in terms of >>> bandwidth and electricity). >>> If Google harvests our information, using massively the API we provide, >>> and >>> they just make it a silo for them to use (for the Knowledge Graph, for >>> example) and this hurts us, I'm wondering if >>> we can do something about it. There are only very few players who can take >>> all our information and use it as an internal asset, enriching it and NOT >>> sharing it. >>> >>> I don't think in binary, so for me there is no contradiction to have a >>> CC-BY-SA content, but some caveat for big, big, big players. >>> I'm not saying (nobody is) that we have to shift to a NC license. Just >>> that I don't want our movement to be hurt by multi-billion dollars >>> companies: I'm not an expert of the commons (I bet many people in this >>> list >>> are) so I'm genuinely interested in hearing opinions about this. Is such >>> thing as "tragedy of the digital commons"? Can Google (or Amazon or >>> Facebook) exploits us? >>> >>> Now please tell me (gently, :-D) where is my mistake in this line of >>> thought. >>> >>> Aubrey >> >> >> CC-BY-SA allows everyone (including big companies) to modify (for instance, >> to enrich) >> and not share-alike AS LONG AS their extended work is kept private. That >> means >> Facebook pages and Google infoboxes based on CC-BY-SA content ought to carry >> the CC-BY-SA license too, because they are distributed to an audience wider >> than the >> changes' copyright owners (usually the companies themselves). > > By this logic, and it is reasonable but debatable, if a Google search > infobox should be CC-BY-SA, then Wikidata items that contain all the > same infobox values from a Wikipedia article should also be CC-BY-SA. > > -- > John Vandenberg > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
Hi! Please see below the reply by Rob from MusicBrainz (forwarding because he is not on the mailing list): > On Jan 17, 2016, at 04:51, Mitar wrote: > > I would suggest that anyone interested in monetizing APIs check how > MusicBrainz (https://musicbrainz.org/) is doing it. > > An open encyclopedia for music metadata. Their data is all open, > collaboratively made, and APIs are free to use, but big users are > asked to pay. In this way they are getting money from Google, for > example. You should contact them and check how they feel about issues > raised here: Do they feel that they get strings attached for receiving > money from Google? How do their contributors feel about them getting > money in this way? How do they achieve that big players pay, but > community projects, researchers, and others do not? What is the > process to determine that? In fact, I am CCing Rob from MusicBrainz > here. Hello! I wanted to give you an update on our business model, since we pivoted on that back in May. If this sounds bad, it isn't -- we're actually following along the path that Creative Commons has envisioned for people using their licenses. For over 10 years we used Creative Commons licenses to determine if people should or should not pay us for the data they use in their business. That got us to $250k/year and then we leveled off. (This is akin to an aspiring CC artist releasing their content as they work to become known). But then there comes a point when the business/aspiring artist can stand on its/their own and start making its/their own rules. And this is where we've arrived now -- today we have a support model where people who make commercial use of our data are encouraged to support us. There is no requirement for supporting us, but we're quick to point out that a company that makes financial gains using our data really ought to give something back to us in order for us to keep the lights on and improve what we do. And, this is working! Have a look at our growing list of supporters: https://metabrainz.org/supporters The only major music tech company left that isn't supporting us is Apple and maybe SoundCloud, but they are on my hit list for this year. Have a look at the tiers of support we setup: https://metabrainz.org/supporters/account-type Note that the tiers have guidelines that are a vague suggestion of data usage and company size. While people get an idea what "support" means, it isn't fully clear, so most will sign up as "stealth start-up", which is great, because it lets us start a conversation about their data use. In the course of the conversation we can determine a fair level of support that suits the company's current needs and ability to pay. Note that we hardly talk about "products" in this case anymore -- we don't really care how people use our data. (I've long joked about us operating under a drug dealer business model, that "the first one is free". But, really, this is exactly what we're doing. Lots of companies got hooked on our data and now we're looping around asking for support) I hope this makes sense -- if not, hit me up for questions! -- --ruaok Excel is not a database! Robert Kaye -- r...@musicbrainz.org --http://musicbrainz.org -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
Hi! I have been recently investigating business models for community based and collaborative online services. You do not have to reinvent the wheel (or discussions), there is some experience in this field from other projects. So, to move the discussion away from just opinions and feelings... I would suggest that anyone interested in monetizing APIs check how MusicBrainz (https://musicbrainz.org/) is doing it. An open encyclopedia for music metadata. Their data is all open, collaboratively made, and APIs are free to use, but big users are asked to pay. In this way they are getting money from Google, for example. You should contact them and check how they feel about issues raised here: Do they feel that they get strings attached for receiving money from Google? How do their contributors feel about them getting money in this way? How do they achieve that big players pay, but community projects, researchers, and others do not? What is the process to determine that? In fact, I am CCing Rob from MusicBrainz here. You could also check Crossref, another non-profit serving APIs to the community and commercial entities. To my knowledge their approach is that they provide free API for everyone, but if you require uptime and SLAs then you pay. CCing Geoffrey from Crossref. Another project to look at is Arxiv, an archive of academic articles' preprints. Their model is to look from which universities/organizations the most requests are coming based on IPs and then contacting them and suggesting that they pay/donate for their service. In this way the service is free for users, but organizations behind big groups of users are paying for service to be online for everyone. Mitar On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of thinking: > > Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the > Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to the > services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising, > providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikimedia > Foundation's growth. The Board emphasized the importance of keeping free > access to the existing APIs and services, keeping operational growth in > line with the organization's effectiveness, providing room for innovation > in the Foundation's activities, and other potential fundraising strategies. > The Board asked Lila to analyze and develop some of these potential > strategies for further discussion at a Board meeting in 2016. > Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07 > -Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]] > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [OpenAccess] New Wikipedia Library Signups: Free Research Accounts!
Hi! This reminds me of ugly practices of proprietary software companies giving free software to students so that they are able to learn the tools and then later on have to pay. So we will be making links to paywalled journals and we will be able to do it for free, but then our readers will have to pay to read them? So Wikipedia will provide free advertisements for paywalled content? Nicely done, nicely done. This is not open access. This direct opposite to open access. We should not be proud of this. (Please don't take this as an attack on anybody personally and I think The Wikipedia Library Team is doing a great job, but I really feel this is a bad deal. And it was sent to the open access mailing list. Which this is not.) Mitar On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Jake Orlowitz wrote: > Hi! > The Wikipedia Library has new, free research donations available: > > NEW > *DeGruyter: 1000 accounts for English and German-language research, sign up > on one of two language Wikipedias: > English signup <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:De_Gruyter> > German signup <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:De_Gruyter> > *Fold3: 100 accounts for American history and military archives ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fold3> > *Scotland's People: 100 accounts for Scottish Genealogy database ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ScotlandsPeople> > > EXPANDED > *British Newspaper Archive: 100+ new accounts for British Newspapers > archives ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BNA> > > OPEN > *Highbeam: 100+ accounts for newspapers and magazines ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HighBeam> > *Questia: 100+ accounts for various aggregated journals and social science ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Questia> > *JSTOR: 100+ accounts for journal archives ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:JSTOR> > > Accounts are available to ALL global editors with a 1 year old account and > 1000 edits. Please notify your local community about the signups. Signups > for now are mostly on English Wikipedia, UNLESS you have started a local > Wikipedia Library branch like we've done on Arabic, Chinese, and German. To > get started, please contact Ocaasi at [[m:User:Ocaasi (WMF)]] or > oca...@wikimedia.org > > Thanks! > > The Wikipedia Library Team > <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library> > > ___ > OpenAccess mailing list > openacc...@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess > -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
