- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
- Most likely, new comments will not be taken into account by the new three Working Group members in their work of developing the final Recommendations. You are free however to continue discussing in the spirit of "discussing about Wikipedia is a work in progress". :)
There is not enough detail on this recommendation for me to support or oppose it. Libcub (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely. The entire bunch who wrote the proposals for revenue-streams seem to be primarily incompetent. One-liner/one-paragraph proposals which are way vague. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yup, this recommendation is lacking detail and too vague.--Vulphere 10:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
«Other»??!! Someone should explain User:SGrabarczuk (WMF) that this movement is not a company and if he and the crowd he pals with ever dares to imagine it is, they are in for some bitter diappointment. Better pack your bags, fast, and send your resume to Cambridge Analytica (and to «other companies»). Tuvalkin (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I just published what the Working Group wrote. Please read the docummentation. I suppose you've just jumped into a discussion and haven't had a chance to learn more about the strategy process. Please look at my descriptions ("authors: WG members"). And please calm down. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are right in pointing out this, but note that languages can be used in different ways, especially in a global setting. If you look at w:en:Company and w:en:Nonprofit organization, for instance, you can find a few sentences in which nonprofit organizations are referred as a type of company, which is therefore used as a very general term. - Laurentius (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there any study or data on NASA or other comparable approaches? - Laurentius (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's a bit peculiar that this recommendation cites NASA as one of its two motivating examples even though NASA doesn't make any money from merchandise. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This recommendation has an impact not only on revenue streams, but also on our public image. It may be a positive impact or a negative impact, but it should be investigated before accepting this recommendation. - Laurentius (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Neither enough detail, nor following the free knowledge principleEdit
Well, one line of explanation seems to me very insulting. Nonetheless, the concept of creating nice merchandising it's good as a basic idea (which has been already implemented). But from here to license the products or copyrighting them there is a huge step that it is definitely against the concept of free knowledge. Whoever wants to pay a bit more to contribute to the Wikimedia movement it is welcome, but DIY should be a norm. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 21:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Relation to Wikipedia StoreEdit
How is this different from the Wikipedia Store? Is this a recommendation to expand the official store? Or is this about something completely different such as trademark licensing to third parties? --MarioGom (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Promotional and motivational value of Wikipedia merchandise for volunteersEdit
Many volunteers would be happy to wear Wiki t-shirts if they were distributed at editing events. Another prized item is the old-fashioned Wikipedia Timbuktu bag, which was no longer available last I looked.
If we view t-shirts and bags as a revenue stream, rather than distributing them to interested volunteers, we lose an important outreach and promotional opportunity. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem with revenue streamsEdit
(This comment could -- & probably should -- be applied to all of the recommendations about revenue streams.)
There is a potential danger with developing any revenue stream: that keeping the stream flowing, if not increasing in volume, usurps the importance of what the revenue funds with the result that more resources are devoted to the revenue stream than to anything else -- including the original mission. While the most obvious example of this is US collegiate sports which were first advocated as a means to bring in revenue to benefit the college, yet over the years failed to provide any extra revenue due to the pressure of winning: more staff who expect better salaries, better training facilities, more lavish playing grounds, subsidies to the student athletes, etc. (And sometimes the sports program insist on receiving additional subsidies claiming that the prestige of a winning team justifies diverting funds from educating students.)
So would developing a revenue stream become a tail that wags the free knowledge dog? Some volunteers doubt the Foundation could resist the pull of shifting priorities. Although we all want a steady paycheck. Before any of these recommendations is acted on, we need some mechanism to prevent any revenue stream -- existing or future -- from becoming more important than what the existing projects are doing. No one who is producing the content our audience is coming here for sees much money for our work, let alone enough to make a living from. A fact few of the Foundation employees seem to remember even now. -- Llywrch (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
First of all, NASA does not profit from merchandise.
Second, the Wikimedia store, despite being literally advertised on every page of Wikipedia along with being prominently displayed on the donation thank-you page, has brought in a minimal amount of merchandise income. I don't think it's possible for this to become a major revenue source. --Yair rand (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
From Catalan SalonEdit
We feel the recommendation lacks enough detail.