Brion, are you aware of any WMF tech work aimed specifically at helping large for-profits engage with our projects? Andreas mentioned a side-project for Amazon.
Regardless of specific instances, in principle, would that be a reasonable place to invest general donation revenue, or should we get the for-profits to fund such work if it arises? On Monday, 29 February 2016, Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Jimmy, > > > > I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and > > transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial re-users, > > and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the community. > > There should be a dedicated space where such information is collected and > > available to the public. Major developments should be announced on the > > Wikimedia blog. > > > > If some engineering team does work *specifically* for Amazon Kindle, > Amazon > > Echo, Google Play, Siri etc., then in my view the companies concerned > > should pay for that work, or the work should be left to a for-profit > > contractor. It should not be paid for by donors. > > > What non-hypothetical work are you referring to? > > {{cn}} > > -- brion > > > > Donors do not give money to the Foundation so it can flood the knowledge > > market with a free product that a handful of companies then earn billions > > from. > > > > As for API use, if there are *generic* APIs that multiple commercial > > re-users can benefit from, then they should be charged according to their > > usage, with small users operating below a certain threshold being exempt > > from payment. > > > > Lastly, we should not seek world domination. :) It's unhealthy, > especially > > in the world of information and knowledge. Prices should be high enough > > that some competition is possible. > > > > Andreas > > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@ymail.com > <javascript:;> > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help commercial > > > re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board discussions > > > about this topic. Despite that he takes every opportunity to attack > me, > > > and surely it will disappoint him to know, but my general view is 100% > > > in agreement with him on the core issue - where commercial re-users are > > > getting enormous value from our work, they should be paying for the > > > engineering resources required for their support. > > > > > > Here are two push-backs on the idea that I do think are deserving of > > > serious consideration: > > > > > > 1. Part of our core mission as a community is free access - will a "pay > > > for service" model for APIs for commercial re-users alienate a > > > significant portion of the community? Does requiring some to pay while > > > others get it free raise questions similar to those around "net > > > neutrality"? > > > > > > As a historical footnote, there was a deal many years ago with > > > Answers.com to give them access to an API which they used to present > our > > > content alongside many other resources. They paid for that - not a > huge > > > amount, but it was meaningful back in those days. I don't recall this > > > being particularly controversial. > > > > > > 2. In many cases it may be too simplistic to simply say "a company is > > > benefiting, so they should pay". The point is that *we* also benefit, > > > from increased readership for example, from our work making it to end > > > users as technology changes and as the way people get information > > > changes. There is certainly a situation where setting too high a price > > > would simply push commercial re-users to not use our content at all, so > > > sensible pricing would be key. And with real serious ongoing analysis, > > > the right price could still be "free" even if we in principle charge. > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > For me, despite those being real concerns, I come down firmly on the > > > side of being careful about falling into a trap of doing lots of > > > expensive work for commercial re-users without having them pay. I > don't > > > actually think we do a lot of that right now. What I'd like to see is > > > more of it, and I'm pretty agnostic about whether that's in the form of > > > "self-financing cottage industries" or a "separate for-profit arm" or > > > within the current engineering organization. I can see arguments for > > > any of those. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/28/16 8:02 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < > dar...@alk.edu.pl <javascript:;> > > <javascript:;>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > We COULD outsource most of our tech (I'm not supporting this, I'm > just > > > >> giving perspective). > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing I've been wondering about of late is how much donor-funded > > the > > > > work the WMF is doing that is primarily designed to support > commercial > > > > re-users. > > > > > > > > The other day, I read an Engineering report on the Wikimedia blog > that > > > > spoke of the Wikipedia Zero team doing "side project" work for Amazon > > > > Kindle and Google Play. > > > > > > > > I was thinking, Why are donors paying for that? – especially at a > time > > > when > > > > the Foundation worries about being able to sustain fundraising > growth. > > > > > > > > Wikimedia content is worth billions. Wikidata in particular has huge > > > > potential value for commercial re-users.[1] So have the link-ups > > between > > > > Wikipedia and Amazon, Google, Bing etc. > > > > > > > > It's clear that even in 2008, the Foundation was inundated with > > "multiple > > > > product-specific pitches" from Google.[2] I imagine the breadth and > > > number > > > > of these pitches from Silicon Valley companies can only have > increased > > > > since then. > > > > > > > > Sure, Wikimedia is committed to using its donated funds to make > content > > > > freely available under an open licence, but does that mean donors > > should > > > > also be paying for programming work that is primarily designed to > > support > > > > commercial re-users? > > > > > > > > That work could be done by self-financing cottage industries built up > > by > > > > Wikimedians, working for profit, or even a for-profit arm of the > > > > Foundation. All the Foundation would have to do would be to provide > > basic > > > > documentation; the rest could be left to the open market. > > > > > > > > The astonishing thing to me is that there seems to be very little or > no > > > > publicity and transparency from the WMF about developments in this > > area. > > > > For instance, I was unable to find any WMF communication about > > Wikipedia > > > > Smart Lookup being integrated in the Amazon Kindle (something Amazon > > > > announced in 2014),[3] even though WMF teams clearly have done > > > programming > > > > work on this. You'd have thought having Wikipedia search embedded in > a > > > > major product like the Kindle is a big thing, worthy of a > > > community-facing > > > > announcement? > > > > > > > > In short, I think the WMF should collate and publicise more > information > > > > about commercial re-use applications, and be transparent about the > work > > > > it's doing to support such re-use. Maybe there is another > "transparency > > > > gap" here.[4] > > > > > > > > And if there is any work that the Foundation is currently doing that > > > > primarily benefits commercial re-users, then I think it should stop > > doing > > > > that for free (= at donors' expense), and allow for-profit > contractors > > to > > > > spring up and pitch for that work. That would allow the non-profit > > > > foundation to focus on user-facing improvements. > > > > > > > > Andreas > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/25/wikidata_turns_the_world_into_a_database/ > > > > [2] See Sue Gardner's email quoted on the last two pages of > > > > http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/sandberg.pdf > > > > [3] > > > > > > > > > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/forums/kindleqna/ref=cs_hc_k_m_oldest?ie=UTF8&forumID=Fx1FI6JDSFEQQ7V&cdThread=Tx27IU7Z5IQJV2J&cdSort=oldest > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap#Transparency_about_donor-funded_work_supporting_commercial_re-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > <javascript:;> > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > <javascript:;> > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > <javascript:;> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > <javascript:;> > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > <javascript:;> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > <javascript:;> > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > ?subject=unsubscribe> -- Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ 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>