2016-01-16 19:21 GMT+01:00 Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org>: > To share some context of the discussion the board had around this -- I > don't think the minutes give enough detail. APIs -- as we are freely and > rapidly creating them today are important, but are not quite at the core of > the issue we are facing. > > Today Wikimedia is the largest internet channel for open free knowledge in > the world. But the trends are against us. We have to face them together. We > have to have the answers on how. The strategic discussion next week will > help guide us. > > Over the last year we looked at the trends in Wikimedia traffic, internet > as a whole and user behaviors. It took a lot of research. When we started > the process we have not had solid internal data about unique visitors or > human vs. crawler usage on the site. For a top 10 website this is a big > issue; it hurts our ability to make smart decisions. We've learned a lot. > > We found data that supports Leigh's point -- our permissive license > supports our core value, we are (I know I am) here for free knowledge. Yet > it allows others to use the content in ways that truncates, simplifies and > reduces it. More importantly this type of reuse separates our readers from > our site, disconnecting readers from our contributors (no edit buttons) and > ultimately reduces traffic. Is this a problem? I'd like to hear if people > on this list see it as such. And how we sustain contributions over time. >
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 API, it's about attractiveness and maybe we should focus on our products. I might be wrong, but what I understand when I read this discussion or the board minutes, is that we want to increase traffic because it's our best known way to raise money (correlation with the endowement ?). This looks like a wrong reason to not respect our values. I do understand that such a discussion can reach the board, it's healthy to list lots of different solutions, that said I don't think it aligns with the core values of our movement. > > Meanwhile estimated half of our hosting is used to support crawlers that > scan our content. This has an associated cost in infrastructure, power, > servers, employees to support some well-funded organizations. The content > is used for a variety of commercial purposes, sometimes having nothing to > do with putting our contributor's work in front of more readers. Still, we > can say this is tangentially supportive of our mission. > Isn't that part of sharing the sum of human knowledge ? > As these two trends increase without our intervention, our traffic decline > will accelerate, our ability to grow editors, content and cover costs will > decline as well. > > The first question on the upcoming consultation next week will be squarely > on this. Please help us. API conversation is a consequence of this > challenge. If we were to build more for reuse: 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 directly as the first stop? How do we bring people into > our world vs. the world of commercial knowledge out there? How do we fund > this if the people moved to access our content through other interfaces (a > trend that has been accelerating)? > > 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 join it. > > Lila > > > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter <osama...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > If we are concerned about Google taking unfair advantage of Wikipedia, > one > > 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 allowed an non-commercial option. > > 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 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 > > > > > > "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 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> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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> > > > > > > -- > Lila Tretikov > Wikimedia Foundation > > *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* > _______________________________________________ > 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> > -- Pierre-Selim _______________________________________________ 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>
