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 available to all reusers for all
purposes. The WMF's job should be to provide as many ways as possible to
make that reuse easy by anyone who wants to, whether that reuser be a
multibillion dollar tech company or a kid in sub-Saharan Africa. It is a
fundamental principle that no one, ever, should be charged to access,
reuse, whatever have you, Wikimedia content. Not even if they could afford
to pay.

Conversely, Google should never get a foot in the door to control Wikimedia
or Mediawiki. And anyone who's writing a check holds some cards. Big check,
lot of cards. If they want to donate to Wikimedia (and it'd be in their
interest to, they certainly make significant use of our content), great! If
they want to donate with strings attached, thanks but no thanks. We're
certainly not hurting for money. If they want to pull a recurring donation
if we do or don't do something, the answer should always be "Sorry to see
you go. Thanks for the donations in the past."

I am becoming more and more convinced that the formal vote of no confidence
Fae keeps putting forth is in fact necessary. And I don't exactly often
agree with Fae, nor am I the Wikipediocracy "Beat up Wikipedia and
Wikimedia at every opportunity" type. Rather, it's out of deep concern and
care for the project I've spent a lot of time helping to build, and a lot
of other people have too. I don't want to take that step, but this has got
to stop, here and now.

Todd

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> What do they cost the foundation for their access? If they put up the
> costs significantly in way of bandwidth or servers or anything like that,
> it would be reasonable for them to support the extra costs.
> Peter
>
> -----Original 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'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 Wikipedia... I mean, their Knowledge
> Vault is probably 100 bigger than Wikidata, but they are not supposed to
> share it. It's an internal asset. And it's not matter of CC0 or CCBYSA:
> they can keep it hidden.
>
> There very, very few players who can exploit commons like this: do we
> need/have the right to address this? Is it a problem?
>
> Aubrey
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Craig Franklin <
> cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On 16 January 2016 at 19:23, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> 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,
> >
> >
> > Brace yourselves...
> >
> >
> > > 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
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11412 - Release Date: 01/16/16
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>

Reply via email to