On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Mitar wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Please see below the reply by Rob from MusicBrainz (forwarding because
> he is not on the mailing list):
>
> [...]
> There is no requirement for supporting us, but we're quick to
> point out that a company that makes financial gains using
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 lice
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 encyclope
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
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
I found http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/670044
Just FYI for all those who don't read all mailinglists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnHlksSfMEE
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines
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
Our users are the world in general; the decision not to make our license
-NC is a basic part of our fundamental understanding. If were were asked by
a commercial entity to provide a service beyond what we could afford, then
I can see the need for some sort of arrangement, for it is better to
provi
Hi,
On 01/16/2016 06:11 PM, Denny Vrandecic wrote:
> To give a bit more thoughts: I am not terribly worried about current
> crawlers. But currently, and more in the future, I expect us to provide
> more complex and this expensive APIs: a SPARQL endpoint, parsing APIs, etc.
> These will be simply e
I've been thinking about it and this is just bothering me too much.
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> Folks (WMF board, and those closely related), do we really have to hold a
> vote of no confidence to get your attention? Do you have any doubt that
> it'd pass?
>
>
The Wikim
> >> can say this is tangentially supportive of our mission.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As these two trends increase without our intervention, our traffic
> > > > decline
> > > > >> will accelerate, our ability to grow e
: APIs are a good way
> to
> > do
> > > >> so. If we are to somehow incentivize users of SIri to come back to
> > > >> Wikipedia, what would we need to do? Should we improve our site so
> > more
> > > >> people come to us direc
gt;
> > >> Those are the core questions we need to face. We will have to have
> some
> > >> uncomfortable, honest discussions as we test our hypothesis this year.
> > The
> > >> conversation next week is a good start to prioritize those. Please
&g
On 16 January 2016 at 18:21, Lila Tretikov wrote:
> I don't think the minutes give enough detail.
Well, quite.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/M
Il 17/01/2016 00:49, Risker ha scritto:
Hmm. The majority of those crawlers are from search engines - the very
search engines that keep us in the top 10 of their results (and often in
the top 3), thus leading to the usage and donations that we need to
survive. If they have to pay, then they mi
on valley insider whose future
employers could easily be other tech giants.
WereSpielChequers/Jonathan
Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 18:11:51 -0800
> From: Denny Vrandecic
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
> Mes
ize users of SIri to come back to
> > > >> Wikipedia, what would we need to do? Should we improve our site so
> > more
> > > >> people come to us directly as the first stop? How do we bring people
> > > into
> > > >> our world vs. the worl
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 wo
;>
> > >> Those are the core questions we need to face. We will have to have
> some
> > >> uncomfortable, honest discussions as we test our hypothesis this year.
> > The
> > >> conversation next week is a good start to prioritize those. Please
> joi
next week is a good start to prioritize those. Please join
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Lila
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter <
> osama...@hotmail.com
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
;> simple solution is to allow content donations with a non-commercial
>>> restriction. Right now, the concept of "free" include commercial use. An
>>> added bonus to this is that we would get a lot more institutional
>>> donations
>>> of content if we allo
use. An
>>> added bonus to this is that we would get a lot more institutional
>>> donations
>>> of content if we allowed an non-commercial option.
>>> My problem with allowing for paying for "premium access" is that we are
>>> allowing Google
community.
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
From: ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0100
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freemiumly share
in the sum of all knowledge." XD
Il 16/01/
ing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
I wonder how many ways there are to say "No"? Well, let's start with "no".
(My actual thoughts on this idea would probably get me put on moderation, so
I'll refrain.)
I helped build this project to be freely ava
I think if anyone were to pay, they should all pay at the same rate,
according to their usage.
Moreover, those whose usage is minimal should not pay at all. You might
have a threshold – say, if it's $X or less, no need to pay a dime.
So the Indian or African start-up would have access for free, w
2016-01-16 20:40 GMT+01:00 Pierre-Selim :
> Isn't that the point of using free licence (not NC, nor ND) ? I guess we do
> so
> to allow people/company/the world to reuse our content the way they want.
>
> If we have problem attracting people to our plateform, then the problem is
> not
> about our
t; > My problem with allowing for paying for "premium access" is that we are
> > allowing Google to have a priviledged position. There is no way around
> > that.
> > What is the impetus behind this proposal? Its not like we are lacking
> > money. And limiting growth
t
> least not to the community.
>
>
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > From: ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
> > Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
> >
> > "Imagine a world in which ev
Hoi,
If anything the Wikimedia Foundation is about providing free access and
provide it to everyone who needs it on an equal basis. When this changes,
when people pay for superior service that is not available for everyone I
will really hate it and the people who had us deviate so much from where w
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:09 PM MZMcBride wrote:
> Pete Forsyth wrote:
> >Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> >Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to
> >the services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
> >
Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Todd Allen
Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 6:02 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
I wonder how many ways there are to say "No"? Well, let's
Pete Forsyth wrote:
>Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
>Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to
>the services and APIs, expanding major donor and foundation fundraising,
>providing specific services for a fee, or limiting the Wikime
al Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Andrea Zanni
> Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 2:08 PM
> To: Craig Franklin; Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
>
> Do you think?
>
> I
...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Andrea Zanni
Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 2:08 PM
To: Craig Franklin; Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
Do you think?
I'm genuinely not sure.
I think that the difference in scale from what Google does with our data and
Thanks for raising this Pete. I am interested in both the ethics and
practicalities of this change, as a long established unpaid volunteer
API user.
Sorry to raise the obvious, but while Geshuri is on the board, someone
found in court to have acted *illegally* on behalf of Google resulting
in dama
quarter of UK donors to go through Gift Aid.
WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 21:59:50 +1000
> From: Craig Franklin
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
> Message-ID:
>
Interesting.
It would make sense in general, but if we de-contextualize Wikimedia.
The potential of Wikimedia projects are connected with the question that
they are free. Having a premium access means two kind of risks:
a) losing the community, and Wikipedia will become quickly a "big
outdat
And limiting growth of the Foundation is not a bad thing... at least not to the
community.
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> From: ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs
>
> "Imagin
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freemiumly share
in the sum of all knowledge." XD
Il 16/01/2016 10:23, Pete Forsyth ha scritto:
I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of thinking:
Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for th
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:23 PM, 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,
...
> or limiting the Wikimedia Foundation's growth.
What a good idea.
Richard
On 16 January 2016 at 22:09, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> Do we want to charge for knowledge? Of course not. But do we want to be
> able to introduce cool new tools for everyone faster, because e.g. Google
> is willing to pay for their development if they can use it for some time
> earlier as "pre
> Looking for additional revenue sources isn't a bad idea, but charging for
> premium access is likely to annoy the community to a degree that will make
> the great Visual Editor revolt look like some quiet and polite murmuring.
That's definitely a conversation worth having, as it helps us underst
Do you think?
I'm genuinely not sure.
I think that the difference in scale from what Google does with our data
and the general developer/researcher is pretty big. One million times big.
I actually think that "over-the-top" players like Google do actually
exploit free licensed materials like Wikipe
On 16 January 2016 at 19:23, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> I'm interested to hear some perspectives on the following line of thinking:
>
> Lisa presented some alternative strategies for revenue needs for the
> Foundation, including the possibility of charging for premium access to the
> services and APIs
"imagine a world where every human being can freely share in the sum of all
knowledge" - forget that we can make a quid by charging now as we are the
best and only remaining encyclopedia
- suppose its time stop imagining anything beyond a dollar sign,
- WMF could start by charging Google f
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,
providin
46 matches
Mail list logo
