Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Aubrey,

I promised you an answer, and here it comes finally. Sorry it took me a
while :)

Why do I want to be in this movement and not in another one?
Because I find the people here as crazy idealist as I am. Because the tasks
give us something to do that allows us to have something in common. Because
it satisfies this excessive (pathological?) curiosity I have for
everything. Because we have built something that the world admires, and we
are respected for that.

What could do everyone in this movement better to satisfy my sense of
purpose?
To be even more daringly idealist, to bring it to the extreme and beyond.
To be able to find things in common with other volunteers without having to
do anything. To go beyond curiosity for the world and have also curiosity
about one another. To use the respect that the world has for us to
effectively activate global changes.

What is the reward I expect from this movement?
To be transformed. To come here with a limited vision of reality and to
have it expanded. To be challenged, to challenge others, and to learn from
that.

Is it wrong to look for meaning/purpose in the Wikimedia movement?
As it is now, yes. The movement is not well equiped to provide meaning, but
with enough will and perseverance, everything can change.

Do you know what I really like about the people in this movement?
That they really care, about *everything*, and that when I care about
something in particular, they understand the feeling, and I don't have to
explain the burden that it is. And from this conversation and from the
messages that I received in private, I also can tell that there is care for
one another too. Sometimes I believe that we might not have the tools to
express this care. I know this because I wish the best for everyone and it
is hard to show, and since we are not that different, that must be the
situation of everyone, right? :)

If money is not the "silver bullet" to address the problems, what is it
then?
I think it is a combination. I'm too humble to say "give me money, give me
power, I am the right person to help you". No, I don't feel it works that
way. The only thing I can do is enable the structures that allow *anyone*
to step forward and start challenging our wrong ideas, but to do that I
strongly believe they need community support, material and immaterial. Not
to do whatever they want, nor to do whatever anyone else wants, but to
bring about at least personal growth and wisdom.

Wikimedia doesn't complete me either. I come here complete, yet I see in
here a window to the world. If the importance to listen deeply is
understood here, and its benefits felt, then it will be a matter of time
that it will spread everywhere. If the capacity to embody ideas, and bring
them forward, not with the intention to impose them, but with the will to
improve them and understand better how they fit into our lives, then that
also will spread. If all this spreads into the world, then no matter where
I am or with who, I will feel the effects of the Wikimedia community in my
life.

I also have experience with feeling alone with my crowd. And my realization
has been that no matter where I go I will feel alone unless I learn to be
*inquisitively* curious about the other, while encouraging them to do the
same with me (it has to go both ways). Only then true mutual understanding
is built, and then there is trust to share more, and to forget about all
judgments and misconceptions. And then through others you also learn to get
to know yourself better, and then you become your best friend, and then it
is awesome because that is the person you spent most of the time with. I
like others very much, and I like myself too :)
Of course this takes effort, and not everyone is ready or in the situation
to engage in this process, so I feel that to have a handful of people that
know you really well is already a lot.

Micru

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:06 PM Andrea Zanni 
wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:25 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> Dear David,
> your mail is very long and dense, I don't know where to start:
> so I'll start from a random point ;-)
>
>
> > You say that that WMF bears responsibility in the "failure" of our
> > Wikisource community project, and that it is not important now. I do not
> > agree about the timing, I find it is very relevant now, because the same
> > pattern that has happened before, it is happening again now. And the
> > pattern is that of the individual voice vs. the organization. We are like
> > ants next to a giant, we complain and say what we need, but we are so
> > little in comparison that our voice doesn't reach any ears.
>
>
> I don't agree with this, because I think that the WMF was the least of my
> problems with Wikimedia, when I decided to take my "wiki sabbatical".
> I actually have problems with the *Wikimedia movement*: with the whole
> thing (volunteers, chapters, WMF, everything).
> I think that our mission is so ambitious, transcendent and great that 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Hi David,

I just repeated the formulation of James's proposal (our messages crossed,
I did not react to your message).

Concerning your earlier question on whether "people getting money to learn
to listen" would work - well, it might. But than these people should be
clearly distinguished from the rest of the community and might not create
content, at least not with their special accounts. (I already explained why
I think paying people to create content is a bad idea, and why having
people in the community who are paid alongside with these who are doing the
same job and are not paid is a bad idea). This is, as far as I understand
it, the idea of the WMF community engagement team (in particular, community
health). However, whereas in principle it might work, I do not see how it
could be scaled up - you need people speaking several dozens of languages,
and who are professionally qualified. And I also agree that whereas there
are clearly things which are not healthy in the community, large-scale
psychoterapy is not what we should and can provide. If people are engaged
to the point that they get addicted and need some rehabilitation, they
should disengage (and possibly even forcibly be disengaged, as happened to
one recently globally banned user who meant well but was unable to stop)
and seek professional assistance outside Wikimedia movement. Wikimedia is
about creating free content and propagating free knowledge, it is not about
making friends, creating social networks, or getting the hobbies monetized.
(To be clear, I do not imply at all that you have these intentions or need
rehabilitation or smth, but the sentiment repeats much too often).

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:28 AM, David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

> Yaroslav,
> what do you mean by people working at the front? Do you mean that you would
> like some leadership in the movement?
> (understanding leadership as the capacity to listen to many voices, and
> challenge them)
>
> I never heard of any company where there are rotations of people who
> matter... in fact it is quite the opposite:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_retention
>
> Why do you feel that rotations are necessary? And wouldn't be the loss
> greater than the gain?
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:00 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > Actually, concerning the group of people working "at the front" might
> work
> > (as soon as it is not just about the support of the English Wikipedia),
> and
> > I would not count sending them to Wikimania as a monetary reward -
> assuming
> > this group undergoes regular rotations, and people who stop working leave
> > the group.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> > m...@anderswennersten.se
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > James, I think you yourself earlier today put forwards a possible first
> > > step in this direction.
> > >
> > > Support a group of people working "at the front" in neutralizing paid
> > > editing and other bad editing, by giving them possiblity to meet IRL,
> and
> > > why not at a session commited to this issue at WIkimania?
> > >
> > > Anders
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Den 2018-06-10 kl. 20:09, skrev James Heilman:
> > >
> > >> There is a fair bit of literature on intrinsic versus extrinsic
> > >> motivation.
> > >> Wikipedia has been mostly built on the first. Introducing greater
> > >> extrinsic
> > >> motivation may decrease intrinsic motivation. Doing so should thus be
> > done
> > >> with great care, at a small scale that can be reversed, and be well
> > >> studied
> > >> to make sure the positive outweigh the negatives before being
> expanded.
> > >> Not
> > >> saying we should not look at this just that it may not result in the
> > >> benefits we hope far. With respect to burn out, emergency physicians
> are
> > >> generally paid well yet over half are experiencing burnout.
> > >> https://wire.ama-assn.org/life-career/report-reveals-severit
> > >> y-burnout-specialty
> > >>
> > >> James
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Yaroslav Blanter 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi David,
> > >>>
> > >>> Well, I did not reply because I disagree but in my experience having
> > long
> > >>> arguments with people one disagrees with usually does not lead to
> > >>> agreement
> > >>> and is also very tiring. You gave your opinion, I gave mine, it is up
> > to
> > >>> other readers to decide whose arguments are stronger. I really hate
> > this
> > >>> "last word" game. If Natacha did not raise exactly the same argument
> > >>> again,
> > >>> I would not even respond.
> > >>>
> > >>> Concerning people who do the job and do not feel appreciated - I
> > >>> absolutely
> > >>> agree with you that they should be rewarded. The appreciation can
> come
> > >>> from
> > >>> both the community and the WMF (and possibly sometimes from the
> > external
> > >>> parties). I just disagree that this appreciation should be monetary.
> > >>> There
> > >>> are many ways 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Yaroslav,
what do you mean by people working at the front? Do you mean that you would
like some leadership in the movement?
(understanding leadership as the capacity to listen to many voices, and
challenge them)

I never heard of any company where there are rotations of people who
matter... in fact it is quite the opposite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_retention

Why do you feel that rotations are necessary? And wouldn't be the loss
greater than the gain?

Cheers,
Micru


On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:00 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Actually, concerning the group of people working "at the front" might work
> (as soon as it is not just about the support of the English Wikipedia), and
> I would not count sending them to Wikimania as a monetary reward - assuming
> this group undergoes regular rotations, and people who stop working leave
> the group.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> m...@anderswennersten.se
> > wrote:
>
> > James, I think you yourself earlier today put forwards a possible first
> > step in this direction.
> >
> > Support a group of people working "at the front" in neutralizing paid
> > editing and other bad editing, by giving them possiblity to meet IRL, and
> > why not at a session commited to this issue at WIkimania?
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> > Den 2018-06-10 kl. 20:09, skrev James Heilman:
> >
> >> There is a fair bit of literature on intrinsic versus extrinsic
> >> motivation.
> >> Wikipedia has been mostly built on the first. Introducing greater
> >> extrinsic
> >> motivation may decrease intrinsic motivation. Doing so should thus be
> done
> >> with great care, at a small scale that can be reversed, and be well
> >> studied
> >> to make sure the positive outweigh the negatives before being expanded.
> >> Not
> >> saying we should not look at this just that it may not result in the
> >> benefits we hope far. With respect to burn out, emergency physicians are
> >> generally paid well yet over half are experiencing burnout.
> >> https://wire.ama-assn.org/life-career/report-reveals-severit
> >> y-burnout-specialty
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Yaroslav Blanter 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi David,
> >>>
> >>> Well, I did not reply because I disagree but in my experience having
> long
> >>> arguments with people one disagrees with usually does not lead to
> >>> agreement
> >>> and is also very tiring. You gave your opinion, I gave mine, it is up
> to
> >>> other readers to decide whose arguments are stronger. I really hate
> this
> >>> "last word" game. If Natacha did not raise exactly the same argument
> >>> again,
> >>> I would not even respond.
> >>>
> >>> Concerning people who do the job and do not feel appreciated - I
> >>> absolutely
> >>> agree with you that they should be rewarded. The appreciation can come
> >>> from
> >>> both the community and the WMF (and possibly sometimes from the
> external
> >>> parties). I just disagree that this appreciation should be monetary.
> >>> There
> >>> are many ways to reward people and at the same to avoid introducing
> >>> additional factors which I believe are harmful for the community.
> >>>
> >>> Concerning the premise that the existed model does not work anymore - I
> >>> just disagree with the premise. Indeed, we have for example burnout of
> >>> volunteers - I myself resigned the admin tools in the English Wikipedia
> >>> in
> >>> January, and stopped editing for a month in February, after the
> community
> >>> failed to do anything about long-term harassment of a certain user
> >>> directed
> >>> at me - but this unfortunately happened before and will happen later.
> >>> Specifically concerning the administrator issue, in the English
> >>> Wikipedia I
> >>> would still like to see any evidence that there is work which requires
> an
> >>> admin attention and does not get it. All backlogs I am aware of
> originate
> >>> not because administrators are lazy or there are too few of them, but
> >>> because things are being asked are not submitted to a right place -
> such
> >>> as
> >>> for example someone asking to resolve a long-standing content dispute
> >>> claiming it is vandalism.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Yaroslav
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:21 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
> dacu...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yaroslav,
> 
>  Yes, you already made your point earlier, and I addressed it here [1]
>  and
>  also in the draft proposal to enable some volunteers to receive
>  donations
>  for their work [2]. The fact that you neither commented on my reply to
> 
> >>> your
> >>>
>  initial concern, nor on the proposal suggests me several
> possibilities.
> 
> >>> The
> >>>
>  first one is that you are not listening to me [3], because you are not
>  interacting with the proposals that could counter your fears, and you
>  are
>  not asking questions about them. The second one is that you don't
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Actually, concerning the group of people working "at the front" might work
(as soon as it is not just about the support of the English Wikipedia), and
I would not count sending them to Wikimania as a monetary reward - assuming
this group undergoes regular rotations, and people who stop working leave
the group.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> James, I think you yourself earlier today put forwards a possible first
> step in this direction.
>
> Support a group of people working "at the front" in neutralizing paid
> editing and other bad editing, by giving them possiblity to meet IRL, and
> why not at a session commited to this issue at WIkimania?
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Den 2018-06-10 kl. 20:09, skrev James Heilman:
>
>> There is a fair bit of literature on intrinsic versus extrinsic
>> motivation.
>> Wikipedia has been mostly built on the first. Introducing greater
>> extrinsic
>> motivation may decrease intrinsic motivation. Doing so should thus be done
>> with great care, at a small scale that can be reversed, and be well
>> studied
>> to make sure the positive outweigh the negatives before being expanded.
>> Not
>> saying we should not look at this just that it may not result in the
>> benefits we hope far. With respect to burn out, emergency physicians are
>> generally paid well yet over half are experiencing burnout.
>> https://wire.ama-assn.org/life-career/report-reveals-severit
>> y-burnout-specialty
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Yaroslav Blanter 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> Well, I did not reply because I disagree but in my experience having long
>>> arguments with people one disagrees with usually does not lead to
>>> agreement
>>> and is also very tiring. You gave your opinion, I gave mine, it is up to
>>> other readers to decide whose arguments are stronger. I really hate this
>>> "last word" game. If Natacha did not raise exactly the same argument
>>> again,
>>> I would not even respond.
>>>
>>> Concerning people who do the job and do not feel appreciated - I
>>> absolutely
>>> agree with you that they should be rewarded. The appreciation can come
>>> from
>>> both the community and the WMF (and possibly sometimes from the external
>>> parties). I just disagree that this appreciation should be monetary.
>>> There
>>> are many ways to reward people and at the same to avoid introducing
>>> additional factors which I believe are harmful for the community.
>>>
>>> Concerning the premise that the existed model does not work anymore - I
>>> just disagree with the premise. Indeed, we have for example burnout of
>>> volunteers - I myself resigned the admin tools in the English Wikipedia
>>> in
>>> January, and stopped editing for a month in February, after the community
>>> failed to do anything about long-term harassment of a certain user
>>> directed
>>> at me - but this unfortunately happened before and will happen later.
>>> Specifically concerning the administrator issue, in the English
>>> Wikipedia I
>>> would still like to see any evidence that there is work which requires an
>>> admin attention and does not get it. All backlogs I am aware of originate
>>> not because administrators are lazy or there are too few of them, but
>>> because things are being asked are not submitted to a right place - such
>>> as
>>> for example someone asking to resolve a long-standing content dispute
>>> claiming it is vandalism.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Yaroslav
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:21 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yaroslav,

 Yes, you already made your point earlier, and I addressed it here [1]
 and
 also in the draft proposal to enable some volunteers to receive
 donations
 for their work [2]. The fact that you neither commented on my reply to

>>> your
>>>
 initial concern, nor on the proposal suggests me several possibilities.

>>> The
>>>
 first one is that you are not listening to me [3], because you are not
 interacting with the proposals that could counter your fears, and you
 are
 not asking questions about them. The second one is that you don't trust
 your own capacity to listen to other people even when money is involved.
 That could also be, because people with the biggest fear that others do

>>> not
>>>
 listen to them are indeed not well equiped to listen to other people.
 And
 the third one could be that you are a victim of your own observations,

>>> you
>>>
 might be so used to see white swans (people being paid not listening) in
 your life that the mere idea that black swans (people being paid who
 listen) exist might seem inconceibable for you. It could also be that
 you
 find something wrong or that could be done better in my proposal or that
 you have a better one, but since you haven't voiced your opinion, I
 don't
 know what.

 Concerning time and motivation, I consider that the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Yaroslav,

Thanks for explaining why you didn't answer. I agree with you, these kind
of conversations can be *very* exausting, but in this case I am not looking
for an argument, I am just trying to understand your position better. You
formulated your standing against "regular paid editors not listening", but
what about "people getting money to learn to listen"? Do you consider it to
be the same? If so, why? And if not, what is wrong about it?

To me if there is harassment, or if you have felt harassed, it is a clear
indication that we are not doing enough as a community to make feel
everybody welcome. There are things we can do as individuals, and others as
a community, but they require *a lot* of time and effort, and if admins
cannot spend time on that, then nobody else can.

@James, I agree with you that any change in the system should start at a
small scale and be studied. But as mentioned before, for me it is not only
about introducing money in the equation, it is about introducing it
together with wisdom, only then the extrinsic motivation will not take
over. To tackle burnout there is the idea of consultation teams from DBT
(basically support groups for professionals):
https://behavioraltech.org/resources/faqs/dbt-consultation-team/#team

@Anders, you seem pretty concerned about bad editing, but I think every
person should be free to decide where they want to put their effort. Some
might find your goal important, but not all. If you go to Cape Town, please
do discuss it there.

Regards,
Micru
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[Anders Wennersten]

James, I think you yourself earlier today put forwards a possible first 
step in this direction.


Support a group of people working "at the front" in neutralizing paid 
editing and other bad editing, by giving them possiblity to meet IRL, 
and why not at a session commited to this issue at WIkimania?


Anders


Den 2018-06-10 kl. 20:09, skrev James Heilman:

There is a fair bit of literature on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation.
Wikipedia has been mostly built on the first. Introducing greater extrinsic
motivation may decrease intrinsic motivation. Doing so should thus be done
with great care, at a small scale that can be reversed, and be well studied
to make sure the positive outweigh the negatives before being expanded. Not
saying we should not look at this just that it may not result in the
benefits we hope far. With respect to burn out, emergency physicians are
generally paid well yet over half are experiencing burnout.
https://wire.ama-assn.org/life-career/report-reveals-severity-burnout-specialty

James

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:


Hi David,

Well, I did not reply because I disagree but in my experience having long
arguments with people one disagrees with usually does not lead to agreement
and is also very tiring. You gave your opinion, I gave mine, it is up to
other readers to decide whose arguments are stronger. I really hate this
"last word" game. If Natacha did not raise exactly the same argument again,
I would not even respond.

Concerning people who do the job and do not feel appreciated - I absolutely
agree with you that they should be rewarded. The appreciation can come from
both the community and the WMF (and possibly sometimes from the external
parties). I just disagree that this appreciation should be monetary. There
are many ways to reward people and at the same to avoid introducing
additional factors which I believe are harmful for the community.

Concerning the premise that the existed model does not work anymore - I
just disagree with the premise. Indeed, we have for example burnout of
volunteers - I myself resigned the admin tools in the English Wikipedia in
January, and stopped editing for a month in February, after the community
failed to do anything about long-term harassment of a certain user directed
at me - but this unfortunately happened before and will happen later.
Specifically concerning the administrator issue, in the English Wikipedia I
would still like to see any evidence that there is work which requires an
admin attention and does not get it. All backlogs I am aware of originate
not because administrators are lazy or there are too few of them, but
because things are being asked are not submitted to a right place - such as
for example someone asking to resolve a long-standing content dispute
claiming it is vandalism.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:21 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:


Yaroslav,

Yes, you already made your point earlier, and I addressed it here [1] and
also in the draft proposal to enable some volunteers to receive donations
for their work [2]. The fact that you neither commented on my reply to

your

initial concern, nor on the proposal suggests me several possibilities.

The

first one is that you are not listening to me [3], because you are not
interacting with the proposals that could counter your fears, and you are
not asking questions about them. The second one is that you don't trust
your own capacity to listen to other people even when money is involved.
That could also be, because people with the biggest fear that others do

not

listen to them are indeed not well equiped to listen to other people. And
the third one could be that you are a victim of your own observations,

you

might be so used to see white swans (people being paid not listening) in
your life that the mere idea that black swans (people being paid who
listen) exist might seem inconceibable for you. It could also be that you
find something wrong or that could be done better in my proposal or that
you have a better one, but since you haven't voiced your opinion, I don't
know what.

Concerning time and motivation, I consider that the people who are
contributing during their official working hours without explicit

permision

to do so are effectively STEALING resources from their employer. This is

of

course a partial view, because who owns actually the planetary resources?
And who is there to say that it is not reasonable to invest some in
Wikimedia projects? Although I understand and I feel empathy for the
volunteers that Bodhisattwa mentions, I feel that what Aubrey said before
holds true here: "You can't do good if there's no "you" in the first
place". So if I ever meet people like that I will tell them: you are not
doing any good here, because you are not putting yourself first.

You say that "we indeed have a lot of people who shout loud, do very
little, and get all kinds of credits for the work others have done". But

we

also 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[James Heilman]

There is a fair bit of literature on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation.
Wikipedia has been mostly built on the first. Introducing greater extrinsic
motivation may decrease intrinsic motivation. Doing so should thus be done
with great care, at a small scale that can be reversed, and be well studied
to make sure the positive outweigh the negatives before being expanded. Not
saying we should not look at this just that it may not result in the
benefits we hope far. With respect to burn out, emergency physicians are
generally paid well yet over half are experiencing burnout.
https://wire.ama-assn.org/life-career/report-reveals-severity-burnout-specialty

James

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> Well, I did not reply because I disagree but in my experience having long
> arguments with people one disagrees with usually does not lead to agreement
> and is also very tiring. You gave your opinion, I gave mine, it is up to
> other readers to decide whose arguments are stronger. I really hate this
> "last word" game. If Natacha did not raise exactly the same argument again,
> I would not even respond.
>
> Concerning people who do the job and do not feel appreciated - I absolutely
> agree with you that they should be rewarded. The appreciation can come from
> both the community and the WMF (and possibly sometimes from the external
> parties). I just disagree that this appreciation should be monetary. There
> are many ways to reward people and at the same to avoid introducing
> additional factors which I believe are harmful for the community.
>
> Concerning the premise that the existed model does not work anymore - I
> just disagree with the premise. Indeed, we have for example burnout of
> volunteers - I myself resigned the admin tools in the English Wikipedia in
> January, and stopped editing for a month in February, after the community
> failed to do anything about long-term harassment of a certain user directed
> at me - but this unfortunately happened before and will happen later.
> Specifically concerning the administrator issue, in the English Wikipedia I
> would still like to see any evidence that there is work which requires an
> admin attention and does not get it. All backlogs I am aware of originate
> not because administrators are lazy or there are too few of them, but
> because things are being asked are not submitted to a right place - such as
> for example someone asking to resolve a long-standing content dispute
> claiming it is vandalism.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:21 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> > Yaroslav,
> >
> > Yes, you already made your point earlier, and I addressed it here [1] and
> > also in the draft proposal to enable some volunteers to receive donations
> > for their work [2]. The fact that you neither commented on my reply to
> your
> > initial concern, nor on the proposal suggests me several possibilities.
> The
> > first one is that you are not listening to me [3], because you are not
> > interacting with the proposals that could counter your fears, and you are
> > not asking questions about them. The second one is that you don't trust
> > your own capacity to listen to other people even when money is involved.
> > That could also be, because people with the biggest fear that others do
> not
> > listen to them are indeed not well equiped to listen to other people. And
> > the third one could be that you are a victim of your own observations,
> you
> > might be so used to see white swans (people being paid not listening) in
> > your life that the mere idea that black swans (people being paid who
> > listen) exist might seem inconceibable for you. It could also be that you
> > find something wrong or that could be done better in my proposal or that
> > you have a better one, but since you haven't voiced your opinion, I don't
> > know what.
> >
> > Concerning time and motivation, I consider that the people who are
> > contributing during their official working hours without explicit
> permision
> > to do so are effectively STEALING resources from their employer. This is
> of
> > course a partial view, because who owns actually the planetary resources?
> > And who is there to say that it is not reasonable to invest some in
> > Wikimedia projects? Although I understand and I feel empathy for the
> > volunteers that Bodhisattwa mentions, I feel that what Aubrey said before
> > holds true here: "You can't do good if there's no "you" in the first
> > place". So if I ever meet people like that I will tell them: you are not
> > doing any good here, because you are not putting yourself first.
> >
> > You say that "we indeed have a lot of people who shout loud, do very
> > little, and get all kinds of credits for the work others have done". But
> we
> > also have many people who speak quietly, do very much, and get no credit
> > for what they are doing, and I do not see harm in recognizing their work
> > with donations, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Hi David,

Well, I did not reply because I disagree but in my experience having long
arguments with people one disagrees with usually does not lead to agreement
and is also very tiring. You gave your opinion, I gave mine, it is up to
other readers to decide whose arguments are stronger. I really hate this
"last word" game. If Natacha did not raise exactly the same argument again,
I would not even respond.

Concerning people who do the job and do not feel appreciated - I absolutely
agree with you that they should be rewarded. The appreciation can come from
both the community and the WMF (and possibly sometimes from the external
parties). I just disagree that this appreciation should be monetary. There
are many ways to reward people and at the same to avoid introducing
additional factors which I believe are harmful for the community.

Concerning the premise that the existed model does not work anymore - I
just disagree with the premise. Indeed, we have for example burnout of
volunteers - I myself resigned the admin tools in the English Wikipedia in
January, and stopped editing for a month in February, after the community
failed to do anything about long-term harassment of a certain user directed
at me - but this unfortunately happened before and will happen later.
Specifically concerning the administrator issue, in the English Wikipedia I
would still like to see any evidence that there is work which requires an
admin attention and does not get it. All backlogs I am aware of originate
not because administrators are lazy or there are too few of them, but
because things are being asked are not submitted to a right place - such as
for example someone asking to resolve a long-standing content dispute
claiming it is vandalism.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:21 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

> Yaroslav,
>
> Yes, you already made your point earlier, and I addressed it here [1] and
> also in the draft proposal to enable some volunteers to receive donations
> for their work [2]. The fact that you neither commented on my reply to your
> initial concern, nor on the proposal suggests me several possibilities. The
> first one is that you are not listening to me [3], because you are not
> interacting with the proposals that could counter your fears, and you are
> not asking questions about them. The second one is that you don't trust
> your own capacity to listen to other people even when money is involved.
> That could also be, because people with the biggest fear that others do not
> listen to them are indeed not well equiped to listen to other people. And
> the third one could be that you are a victim of your own observations, you
> might be so used to see white swans (people being paid not listening) in
> your life that the mere idea that black swans (people being paid who
> listen) exist might seem inconceibable for you. It could also be that you
> find something wrong or that could be done better in my proposal or that
> you have a better one, but since you haven't voiced your opinion, I don't
> know what.
>
> Concerning time and motivation, I consider that the people who are
> contributing during their official working hours without explicit permision
> to do so are effectively STEALING resources from their employer. This is of
> course a partial view, because who owns actually the planetary resources?
> And who is there to say that it is not reasonable to invest some in
> Wikimedia projects? Although I understand and I feel empathy for the
> volunteers that Bodhisattwa mentions, I feel that what Aubrey said before
> holds true here: "You can't do good if there's no "you" in the first
> place". So if I ever meet people like that I will tell them: you are not
> doing any good here, because you are not putting yourself first.
>
> You say that "we indeed have a lot of people who shout loud, do very
> little, and get all kinds of credits for the work others have done". But we
> also have many people who speak quietly, do very much, and get no credit
> for what they are doing, and I do not see harm in recognizing their work
> with donations, specially if they commit to improve themselves and to
> listen. You don't explain why you don't like people who listen and who get
> donations. Tbh, I do not like to have slaves in our movement, and I think
> we should free them from this kind of ungrateful slavery that many seem to
> be very happy about. At least slaves got some food, and a place to sleep.
>
> And also listen to what Anders is saying, our model is not working any more
> (it was not sustainable to start with), we have reached the limit, and now
> it is time to reinvent ourselves. And as far as I know most of us here are
> "bottom", so we are building "bottom-up".
>
> @Aubrey: Thanks for your long answer :) I'll address it later on, to write
> this email took me at least 5h of coming to the keyboard and leaving to
> manage the stress. I hope a reply to your email takes me a bit less...
>
> Regards,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Yaroslav,

Yes, you already made your point earlier, and I addressed it here [1] and
also in the draft proposal to enable some volunteers to receive donations
for their work [2]. The fact that you neither commented on my reply to your
initial concern, nor on the proposal suggests me several possibilities. The
first one is that you are not listening to me [3], because you are not
interacting with the proposals that could counter your fears, and you are
not asking questions about them. The second one is that you don't trust
your own capacity to listen to other people even when money is involved.
That could also be, because people with the biggest fear that others do not
listen to them are indeed not well equiped to listen to other people. And
the third one could be that you are a victim of your own observations, you
might be so used to see white swans (people being paid not listening) in
your life that the mere idea that black swans (people being paid who
listen) exist might seem inconceibable for you. It could also be that you
find something wrong or that could be done better in my proposal or that
you have a better one, but since you haven't voiced your opinion, I don't
know what.

Concerning time and motivation, I consider that the people who are
contributing during their official working hours without explicit permision
to do so are effectively STEALING resources from their employer. This is of
course a partial view, because who owns actually the planetary resources?
And who is there to say that it is not reasonable to invest some in
Wikimedia projects? Although I understand and I feel empathy for the
volunteers that Bodhisattwa mentions, I feel that what Aubrey said before
holds true here: "You can't do good if there's no "you" in the first
place". So if I ever meet people like that I will tell them: you are not
doing any good here, because you are not putting yourself first.

You say that "we indeed have a lot of people who shout loud, do very
little, and get all kinds of credits for the work others have done". But we
also have many people who speak quietly, do very much, and get no credit
for what they are doing, and I do not see harm in recognizing their work
with donations, specially if they commit to improve themselves and to
listen. You don't explain why you don't like people who listen and who get
donations. Tbh, I do not like to have slaves in our movement, and I think
we should free them from this kind of ungrateful slavery that many seem to
be very happy about. At least slaves got some food, and a place to sleep.

And also listen to what Anders is saying, our model is not working any more
(it was not sustainable to start with), we have reached the limit, and now
it is time to reinvent ourselves. And as far as I know most of us here are
"bottom", so we are building "bottom-up".

@Aubrey: Thanks for your long answer :) I'll address it later on, to write
this email took me at least 5h of coming to the keyboard and leaving to
manage the stress. I hope a reply to your email takes me a bit less...

Regards,
Micru

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-May/090365.html
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Micru/Draft_RFC
[3]
https://www.csh.umn.edu/education/focus-areas/whole-systems-healing/leadership/deep-listening
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[Andrea Zanni]

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:25 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

Dear David,
your mail is very long and dense, I don't know where to start:
so I'll start from a random point ;-)


> You say that that WMF bears responsibility in the "failure" of our
> Wikisource community project, and that it is not important now. I do not
> agree about the timing, I find it is very relevant now, because the same
> pattern that has happened before, it is happening again now. And the
> pattern is that of the individual voice vs. the organization. We are like
> ants next to a giant, we complain and say what we need, but we are so
> little in comparison that our voice doesn't reach any ears.


I don't agree with this, because I think that the WMF was the least of my
problems with Wikimedia, when I decided to take my "wiki sabbatical".
I actually have problems with the *Wikimedia movement*: with the whole
thing (volunteers, chapters, WMF, everything).
I think that our mission is so ambitious, transcendent and great that we
sometimes forget that there are some negative side-effects.
One of them we can call "volunteer burn-out", for lack of a better term,
but I think it's little bit deeper than this.
I maybe repeat myself, but: I think that if you (me) look for Meaning and
Purpose in Wikimedia, you (me) are wrong.
It's not the place where you should look for that.
I think that many of us, in certain difficult moments of our life, turn on
Wikimedia and invest a lot of time and effort there, because we feel that
it's the "right" thing to do, and maybe, secretly, we think that we'll get
some kind of reward in the future. We "invest" our time, hoping for a
return, we "expect" something (what is it I don't really know).
The harsh truth, for me, is that, often, there no sure reward to "doing
good". There's no sure and real reward in putting too much effort in
collaborative wiki projects. I think we as a movement could do more to
recognize this, to understand when people are not balanced and they "use
and abuse" wikimedia.
I remember the Dutch chapter doing something like provide counselling for
wikipedia admins, and I found that one the best ideas ever.
We can build on that and find new ways of providing support for our
volunteers.

You see, this is why I think you are conflating different problems here.
One is issues between movement and WMF, another one is "volunteer burnout".
I don't think that WMF is perfect, and as I said it played a little but
significant role in my disillusion regarding Wikimedia, but I definitely
don't think it's the culprit here for larger problems of wiki volunteer
base.
You just cannot expect too much by your work in Wikimedia: you need to
damper you expectations.
I don't think you can expect to create a real community from a bunch of
people that like to edit an encyclopedia online.
If it happens, it's great: but it's not like you can expect it. I've met
many wikimedians in my life: very few I can call "friends".
I actually discussed with my therapist abut this: I remember feeling very
lonely at wikiconferences, wondering why that was.
Wasn't I with my "people", with my "tribe", the people that shared my
delusions in a more open and better world trough online and relentless
editing of a website¹? Was I wrong not feeling "whole" in such a company,
finally in my element?

Eventually, I figured out I was wrong: I discovered that I could find
friends, but they were few. If you think about it, how many wikimedians you
know you could talk of personal stuff? For me, I count an handful.
With the rest of our community, I find myself always talking about projects
and wiki staff, which is...*work*. We talk shop when we are are discussing
wikimedia stuff.  And that's ok. For me, at least, recognizing this was a
big step.
Wikimedia doesn't *complete* me:  and there are very, very few people for I
could say this could be true (and of these few, majority is WMF, so at
least they can pay their bills with their wiki work).

This is my major source of disagreement with you.
I think you are addressing the wrong problem, because I don't think there
is a "silver bullet" in giving money to volunteers.
I'll let other more knowledgeable than me try to explain this and discuss
complex models to improve the current situation.
I don't have an answer to this specific problem: I just know that improving
the hierarchy issue in wikimedia is not gonna solve the major issue I see
at the core of your messages. This is not to say that creating Meta pages
about volunteers is a bad idea: I think it's a great one, but it will not
solve the problem I think you want to solve.

I hope this helps,

Aubrey


¹ it's a joke, I do believe this is often true, but let me use some sarcasm
from time to time ;-)

___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[James Heilman]

We did have a proposal on EN WP for a group of functionaires to help deal
with issues pertaining to undisclosed paid editing. I do not feel this
group would require payment but support to meet once or twice a year IMO
could be useful. Such a group could play a leading roll in:

1) Collecting and organizing the knowing companies that are in breach of
our TOU. This will help warn people not to hire these companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PAIDLIST

2) Collecting groups of known undisclosed paid editors to feed into the AI
tools that are being build. More AI folks would also be helpful.

3) Managing private details about undisclosed paid editing

4) Working with intermediaries like Upworks to help address some of the
worst offenders working via that site among others

Arbcom has recently agreed to take on some of this work but not sure if
they have the time or inclination to manage it fully.

With respect to appreciate for work on Wikipedia / Wikimedia, we have few
mechanism for our readers to provide such feedback. And members of the
community are often more critical of our efforts than the wider world. The
offline apps are interesting as Google play provides better mechanisms for
positive feedback and reading the feedback helps remind me that what we are
doing really does matter.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.kiwix.kiwixcustomwikimed

James

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:19 AM, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> I can agree with most what you write Yaroslav, but I want also to remind
> the scenario that started this issue.
>
> I believe we are in a process of worsening deterioration of the content in
> our major project (Enwp,dewp etc). This as the rewards to enter biased info
> in these are getting higher as the reliability in our content/brand project
> increase. At the same time there are indication that the people "at the
> front" of neutralizing these "attack" are getting fewer and overstrained.
> (number of admins of the being decreasing). According to me it forces us to
> act before the situation gets out of control (we lose the quality and
> credibility in our content). And the choices, as I see it, is to either
> give up our vision "free to all to update" (only validated accounts to
> update) or to strengthen our "defending" forces.
>
> It is not unique to have participant in our project to being given
> financial support. We have our Wikipedian in residence, and at the top in
> the hierarchy of Check users we have WMF employee, and in my understanding
> these cooperations work OK.
>
> I have no direct suggesting how a model to financial support these
> defenders should look like and I do not see it being many perhaps 10-15 in
> total. But I do think it would be a good ting discuss these option, and see
> if a proposal could be put forwards without the negative risks you mention.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Den 2018-06-10 kl. 12:30, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
>
>> If it goes back as a salary, you have people
>> working together, some of them being paid for the work, and some doing it
>> for free. If there is any conflict, "volunteers" getting salary will
>> defend
>> their decision until they get blocked.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Natacha Rault  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for having this conversation.
>>> Having a balanced life is important, but why should the revenues
>>> generated
>>> by volunteer work not go back to volunteers also?
>>> In truth, wikimedia projects are addictive, time consuming, they generate
>>> passionate debates and I have seen many going down the black hole and
>>> finding it hard to manage “priorities”.
>>> This situation is detrimental to those who struggle most to survive.
>>> Should contributing  be the activity of only those rich people who can
>>> afford to be volunteers on their free time? I dont think so.
>>> Tackling with gendergap issues, I see many women not contributing because
>>> they say “it’s time consuming” and they cant afford it.
>>> I don’t know how to deal with these issues, but at the core of
>>> implementing “strategic orientations” which include diversity issues,
>>> well
>>> it is a must have conversation.
>>> As for the wikimedia blog I dont really have an idea on that: if the WMF
>>> does it, finances it, well ... At the same time it would need to remain
>>> under free licence so that we can use the stories in our projects,
>>> because
>>> the revenue paying it is generated from our volunteer work.
>>>
>>> Have a nice day, I have just bought myself a canoe kayak, which is the
>>> only way for me not to get entangled in contributing on a bright sunny
>>> day.
>>> I cant bring my computer on the river!
>>> I think we should finance “wikimedians go green off wiki for the week end
>>> projects”. Some days off the internet walking, swimming, having chats by
>>> a
>>> fire wood and just taking care of ourselves off wiki.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nattes à chat
>>>
>>> Le 10 juin 2018 à 05:38, Bodhisattwa Mandal >>> >

>>> a écrit :
>>>
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[Anders Wennersten]

I can agree with most what you write Yaroslav, but I want also to remind 
the scenario that started this issue.


I believe we are in a process of worsening deterioration of the content 
in our major project (Enwp,dewp etc). This as the rewards to enter 
biased info in these are getting higher as the reliability in our 
content/brand project increase. At the same time there are indication 
that the people "at the front" of neutralizing these "attack" are 
getting fewer and overstrained. (number of admins of the being 
decreasing). According to me it forces us to act before the situation 
gets out of control (we lose the quality and credibility in our 
content). And the choices, as I see it, is to either give up our vision 
"free to all to update" (only validated accounts to update) or to 
strengthen our "defending" forces.


It is not unique to have participant in our project to being given 
financial support. We have our Wikipedian in residence, and at the top 
in the hierarchy of Check users we have WMF employee, and in my 
understanding these cooperations work OK.


I have no direct suggesting how a model to financial support these 
defenders should look like and I do not see it being many perhaps 10-15 
in total. But I do think it would be a good ting discuss these option, 
and see if a proposal could be put forwards without the negative risks 
you mention.


Anders



Den 2018-06-10 kl. 12:30, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:

If it goes back as a salary, you have people
working together, some of them being paid for the work, and some doing it
for free. If there is any conflict, "volunteers" getting salary will defend
their decision until they get blocked.

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Natacha Rault  wrote:


Thanks for having this conversation.
Having a balanced life is important, but why should the revenues generated
by volunteer work not go back to volunteers also?
In truth, wikimedia projects are addictive, time consuming, they generate
passionate debates and I have seen many going down the black hole and
finding it hard to manage “priorities”.
This situation is detrimental to those who struggle most to survive.
Should contributing  be the activity of only those rich people who can
afford to be volunteers on their free time? I dont think so.
Tackling with gendergap issues, I see many women not contributing because
they say “it’s time consuming” and they cant afford it.
I don’t know how to deal with these issues, but at the core of
implementing “strategic orientations” which include diversity issues, well
it is a must have conversation.
As for the wikimedia blog I dont really have an idea on that: if the WMF
does it, finances it, well ... At the same time it would need to remain
under free licence so that we can use the stories in our projects, because
the revenue paying it is generated from our volunteer work.

Have a nice day, I have just bought myself a canoe kayak, which is the
only way for me not to get entangled in contributing on a bright sunny day.
I cant bring my computer on the river!
I think we should finance “wikimedians go green off wiki for the week end
projects”. Some days off the internet walking, swimming, having chats by a
fire wood and just taking care of ourselves off wiki.


Nattes à chat


Le 10 juin 2018 à 05:38, Bodhisattwa Mandal 

a écrit :

Hi David,

I hear you.

I live in that part of the world where getting any job and earning money,
by any means possible, is the topmost priority of life, as unemployment

and

corruption has become intimate part of most of the people. Involvement in
volunteer works with no personal or financial gain, is not appreciated at
all and sanity is frequently questioned even by family members and close
friends. The real life is far more harsh for us than the issues we face

in

Wikipedia.

But, I have seen people, who have fought against all extreme odds to

create

contents in Wikimedia. I met an Wikimedian, who would have no food or

money

for the next day to survive, if he didn't go and look for some labour

work

and earn some money for his family, yet learned advanced computer works
from scratch with the help of a Jurassic age broken laptop gifted by a
well-wisher and built the most impactful project in his language, believe
me, I have seen that laptop with my own eyes. I know someone, very close

to

my heart, who once spent the small amount of money he had with him, to

pay

the cyber cafe, he went almost everyday to edit Wikipedia, even if he

knew,

that the money he was spending, was his last resort for that day. These
Wikimedians are no less than a legend to me and whenever I feel

frustrated

and burnt out, I remember them. I am pretty sure, everyone in this

movement

knows someone amazing.

You are absolutely right, people who build Wikipedia from their core of
their heart are not heard or appreciated in larger Wikimedia world, some

of

them are silently contributing forl a long time , without any expectation
from anyone. On the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[Yaroslav Blanter]

I made this point earlier this month, but let me make it again.

Money generated by volunteers should indeed go back to volunteers. It just
can not go back as a salary. If it goes back as a salary, you have people
working together, some of them being paid for the work, and some doing it
for free. If there is any conflict, "volunteers" getting salary will defend
their decision until they get blocked. We have seen this happening with
some of the WMF staffers who were not succeptible to any feedback of the
community. We have seen it with people who were not paid but who still got
some bonuses from WMF or the chapters. If a considerable amount of
volunteers get paid we are going to have it all over the place.

Concerning the motivation and the lack of time. Well, we all have real-time
obligations. I am a professor in a top research university. An hour of my
time costs, well, a lot. If I spent these three-four hours per day I am
currently spending for Wikimedia projects instead for my primary duties
(and our working time is essentially unlimited despite the 40 hr/week legal
restriction), I would probably produce much more results than I currently
do. And what I am doing on Wikipedia nobody else is doing. If I disappear,
the work just stays not done.  But this is our choice. If someone has no
time for editing Wikipedia - well, obviously, they have other priorities.
In this sense I fully symphatize with Bodhisattwa's example of a user
spending their last money to go to internet cafe to edit Wikipedia.
Wikimedia projects have grown as bottom-up institutions. All attempts to
rebuild them top-down failed miserably. We indeed have a lot of people who
shout loud, do very little, and get all kinds of credits for the work
others have done. But paying these other people if not the way to go.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Natacha Rault  wrote:

> Thanks for having this conversation.
> Having a balanced life is important, but why should the revenues generated
> by volunteer work not go back to volunteers also?
> In truth, wikimedia projects are addictive, time consuming, they generate
> passionate debates and I have seen many going down the black hole and
> finding it hard to manage “priorities”.
> This situation is detrimental to those who struggle most to survive.
> Should contributing  be the activity of only those rich people who can
> afford to be volunteers on their free time? I dont think so.
> Tackling with gendergap issues, I see many women not contributing because
> they say “it’s time consuming” and they cant afford it.
> I don’t know how to deal with these issues, but at the core of
> implementing “strategic orientations” which include diversity issues, well
> it is a must have conversation.
> As for the wikimedia blog I dont really have an idea on that: if the WMF
> does it, finances it, well ... At the same time it would need to remain
> under free licence so that we can use the stories in our projects, because
> the revenue paying it is generated from our volunteer work.
>
> Have a nice day, I have just bought myself a canoe kayak, which is the
> only way for me not to get entangled in contributing on a bright sunny day.
> I cant bring my computer on the river!
> I think we should finance “wikimedians go green off wiki for the week end
> projects”. Some days off the internet walking, swimming, having chats by a
> fire wood and just taking care of ourselves off wiki.
>
>
> Nattes à chat
>
> > Le 10 juin 2018 à 05:38, Bodhisattwa Mandal 
> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > I hear you.
> >
> > I live in that part of the world where getting any job and earning money,
> > by any means possible, is the topmost priority of life, as unemployment
> and
> > corruption has become intimate part of most of the people. Involvement in
> > volunteer works with no personal or financial gain, is not appreciated at
> > all and sanity is frequently questioned even by family members and close
> > friends. The real life is far more harsh for us than the issues we face
> in
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > But, I have seen people, who have fought against all extreme odds to
> create
> > contents in Wikimedia. I met an Wikimedian, who would have no food or
> money
> > for the next day to survive, if he didn't go and look for some labour
> work
> > and earn some money for his family, yet learned advanced computer works
> > from scratch with the help of a Jurassic age broken laptop gifted by a
> > well-wisher and built the most impactful project in his language, believe
> > me, I have seen that laptop with my own eyes. I know someone, very close
> to
> > my heart, who once spent the small amount of money he had with him, to
> pay
> > the cyber cafe, he went almost everyday to edit Wikipedia, even if he
> knew,
> > that the money he was spending, was his last resort for that day. These
> > Wikimedians are no less than a legend to me and whenever I feel
> frustrated
> > and burnt out, I remember them. I am pretty sure, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[Isarra Yos]

On 10/06/18 05:01, Natacha Rault wrote:

Have a nice day, I have just bought myself a canoe kayak, which is the only way 
for me not to get entangled in contributing on a bright sunny day.
I cant bring my computer on the river!


Yes you can, if you have the money for it. They make waterproof computers.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[Natacha Rault]

Thanks for having this conversation.
Having a balanced life is important, but why should the revenues generated by 
volunteer work not go back to volunteers also? 
In truth, wikimedia projects are addictive, time consuming, they generate 
passionate debates and I have seen many going down the black hole and finding 
it hard to manage “priorities”.
This situation is detrimental to those who struggle most to survive. Should 
contributing  be the activity of only those rich people who can afford to be 
volunteers on their free time? I dont think so.
Tackling with gendergap issues, I see many women not contributing because they 
say “it’s time consuming” and they cant afford it.
I don’t know how to deal with these issues, but at the core of implementing 
“strategic orientations” which include diversity issues, well it is a must have 
conversation.
As for the wikimedia blog I dont really have an idea on that: if the WMF does 
it, finances it, well ... At the same time it would need to remain under free 
licence so that we can use the stories in our projects, because the revenue 
paying it is generated from our volunteer work. 

Have a nice day, I have just bought myself a canoe kayak, which is the only way 
for me not to get entangled in contributing on a bright sunny day.
I cant bring my computer on the river! 
I think we should finance “wikimedians go green off wiki for the week end 
projects”. Some days off the internet walking, swimming, having chats by a fire 
wood and just taking care of ourselves off wiki. 


Nattes à chat 

> Le 10 juin 2018 à 05:38, Bodhisattwa Mandal  a 
> écrit :
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> I hear you.
> 
> I live in that part of the world where getting any job and earning money,
> by any means possible, is the topmost priority of life, as unemployment and
> corruption has become intimate part of most of the people. Involvement in
> volunteer works with no personal or financial gain, is not appreciated at
> all and sanity is frequently questioned even by family members and close
> friends. The real life is far more harsh for us than the issues we face in
> Wikipedia.
> 
> But, I have seen people, who have fought against all extreme odds to create
> contents in Wikimedia. I met an Wikimedian, who would have no food or money
> for the next day to survive, if he didn't go and look for some labour work
> and earn some money for his family, yet learned advanced computer works
> from scratch with the help of a Jurassic age broken laptop gifted by a
> well-wisher and built the most impactful project in his language, believe
> me, I have seen that laptop with my own eyes. I know someone, very close to
> my heart, who once spent the small amount of money he had with him, to pay
> the cyber cafe, he went almost everyday to edit Wikipedia, even if he knew,
> that the money he was spending, was his last resort for that day. These
> Wikimedians are no less than a legend to me and whenever I feel frustrated
> and burnt out, I remember them. I am pretty sure, everyone in this movement
> knows someone amazing.
> 
> You are absolutely right, people who build Wikipedia from their core of
> their heart are not heard or appreciated in larger Wikimedia world, some of
> them are silently contributing forl a long time , without any expectation
> from anyone. On the other hand, I have seen loud mouths  with almost no
> substantial or impactful contribution at all, being featured everywhere on
> a regular basis. That's an unfair world we everyday deal with and Wikimedia
> is not an exception.
> 
> I will totally support you, if you create a meta page for these silent
> volunteers, who needs to be seen.
> 
> Best,
> Bodhisattwa
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, 01:56 David Cuenca Tudela,  wrote:
>> 
>> Aubrey,
>> 
>> You speak so much truth in your words that I'm feeling overwhelmed right
>> now. Because like a doctor who cares about his patient, you have just very
>> lovingly and figuratively told me, "you are deeply sick". It hurts, I
>> struggle accepting the truth, but deep inside I know that the only thing I
>> can do is to acknowledge your words, and as every human before of me ask
>> the perennial questions: "why me? what could have I done differently?"
>> 
>> You are right, I put my whole being into this project, I have seen it as a
>> way to find purpose, meaning, liberation, and instead what I have found is
>> the emptiness, my own and that of the people who are in the same situation
>> as me. Maybe they also need the same things as I do, but we never talked
>> about it so I don't know what they need, they never told me. Unlike other
>> people, however, I do know what I need to find purpose here.
>> 
>> To me purpose comes from the mutual acknowledgment with my peers that we
>> are here for something bigger than ourselves. We might never achieve those
>> dreams, but being next to someone who understands you because they are in
>> the same situation, makes life more bearable. But do we share the same
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[Bodhisattwa Mandal]

Hi David,

I hear you.

I live in that part of the world where getting any job and earning money,
by any means possible, is the topmost priority of life, as unemployment and
corruption has become intimate part of most of the people. Involvement in
volunteer works with no personal or financial gain, is not appreciated at
all and sanity is frequently questioned even by family members and close
friends. The real life is far more harsh for us than the issues we face in
Wikipedia.

But, I have seen people, who have fought against all extreme odds to create
contents in Wikimedia. I met an Wikimedian, who would have no food or money
for the next day to survive, if he didn't go and look for some labour work
and earn some money for his family, yet learned advanced computer works
from scratch with the help of a Jurassic age broken laptop gifted by a
well-wisher and built the most impactful project in his language, believe
me, I have seen that laptop with my own eyes. I know someone, very close to
my heart, who once spent the small amount of money he had with him, to pay
the cyber cafe, he went almost everyday to edit Wikipedia, even if he knew,
that the money he was spending, was his last resort for that day. These
Wikimedians are no less than a legend to me and whenever I feel frustrated
and burnt out, I remember them. I am pretty sure, everyone in this movement
knows someone amazing.

You are absolutely right, people who build Wikipedia from their core of
their heart are not heard or appreciated in larger Wikimedia world, some of
them are silently contributing forl a long time , without any expectation
from anyone. On the other hand, I have seen loud mouths  with almost no
substantial or impactful contribution at all, being featured everywhere on
a regular basis. That's an unfair world we everyday deal with and Wikimedia
is not an exception.

I will totally support you, if you create a meta page for these silent
volunteers, who needs to be seen.

Best,
Bodhisattwa



On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, 01:56 David Cuenca Tudela,  wrote:

> Aubrey,
>
> You speak so much truth in your words that I'm feeling overwhelmed right
> now. Because like a doctor who cares about his patient, you have just very
> lovingly and figuratively told me, "you are deeply sick". It hurts, I
> struggle accepting the truth, but deep inside I know that the only thing I
> can do is to acknowledge your words, and as every human before of me ask
> the perennial questions: "why me? what could have I done differently?"
>
> You are right, I put my whole being into this project, I have seen it as a
> way to find purpose, meaning, liberation, and instead what I have found is
> the emptiness, my own and that of the people who are in the same situation
> as me. Maybe they also need the same things as I do, but we never talked
> about it so I don't know what they need, they never told me. Unlike other
> people, however, I do know what I need to find purpose here.
>
> To me purpose comes from the mutual acknowledgment with my peers that we
> are here for something bigger than ourselves. We might never achieve those
> dreams, but being next to someone who understands you because they are in
> the same situation, makes life more bearable. But do we share the same
> dream or aspiration at all? Has anyone ever take a collective vow to show
> to themselves and to others that this is what matters in their life, and
> that they are committing to it? I do not think anyone has ever done that.
> You say that you have given up, but I do not want to reach that point. I
> feel I want to try to build a real community environment and give everyone
> a chance before giving up on them.
>
> My desire as I was typing my email was to be seen, to be recognized by who
> I am, to be understood even. That is something that only a true friend
> could do for me, but as you say we are not good friends even if we did some
> cool things together. We want to collect "all human knowledge", but what do
> we actually know about each other? Is that not valid knowledge or what? In
> my opinion the knowledge about the people in this movement, what they do,
> who they are, what are their dreams, their aspirations, should be collected
> with at least as much interest as we collect all other kind of knowledge.
> Yet nobody does that.
>
> If there is no collective information about who I am and what I have done
> these years, how can I expect other people to value me as much as I want to
> value them? I am as guilty as anyone else for not caring about my fellow
> volunteers in this project, but that doesn't need to continue being that
> way, it can change. I can commit to write a page on Meta about any
> volunteer who wants their work on this project to be seen and recognized,
> and of course anyone can do that for me to. We only need the will.
>
> You say that that WMF bears responsibility in the "failure" of our
> Wikisource community project, and that it is not important now. I do not
> agree about 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Aubrey,

You speak so much truth in your words that I'm feeling overwhelmed right
now. Because like a doctor who cares about his patient, you have just very
lovingly and figuratively told me, "you are deeply sick". It hurts, I
struggle accepting the truth, but deep inside I know that the only thing I
can do is to acknowledge your words, and as every human before of me ask
the perennial questions: "why me? what could have I done differently?"

You are right, I put my whole being into this project, I have seen it as a
way to find purpose, meaning, liberation, and instead what I have found is
the emptiness, my own and that of the people who are in the same situation
as me. Maybe they also need the same things as I do, but we never talked
about it so I don't know what they need, they never told me. Unlike other
people, however, I do know what I need to find purpose here.

To me purpose comes from the mutual acknowledgment with my peers that we
are here for something bigger than ourselves. We might never achieve those
dreams, but being next to someone who understands you because they are in
the same situation, makes life more bearable. But do we share the same
dream or aspiration at all? Has anyone ever take a collective vow to show
to themselves and to others that this is what matters in their life, and
that they are committing to it? I do not think anyone has ever done that.
You say that you have given up, but I do not want to reach that point. I
feel I want to try to build a real community environment and give everyone
a chance before giving up on them.

My desire as I was typing my email was to be seen, to be recognized by who
I am, to be understood even. That is something that only a true friend
could do for me, but as you say we are not good friends even if we did some
cool things together. We want to collect "all human knowledge", but what do
we actually know about each other? Is that not valid knowledge or what? In
my opinion the knowledge about the people in this movement, what they do,
who they are, what are their dreams, their aspirations, should be collected
with at least as much interest as we collect all other kind of knowledge.
Yet nobody does that.

If there is no collective information about who I am and what I have done
these years, how can I expect other people to value me as much as I want to
value them? I am as guilty as anyone else for not caring about my fellow
volunteers in this project, but that doesn't need to continue being that
way, it can change. I can commit to write a page on Meta about any
volunteer who wants their work on this project to be seen and recognized,
and of course anyone can do that for me to. We only need the will.

You say that that WMF bears responsibility in the "failure" of our
Wikisource community project, and that it is not important now. I do not
agree about the timing, I find it is very relevant now, because the same
pattern that has happened before, it is happening again now. And the
pattern is that of the individual voice vs. the organization. We are like
ants next to a giant, we complain and say what we need, but we are so
little in comparison that our voice doesn't reach any ears. For Wikisource
we thought, ok, if we are not being heard as individuals maybe we'll be
heard as an organization, but that didn't happen either! So now that I have
this issue about the Wikimedia Blog and I complain about it, I feel
helpless because it is again an individual standing up against a behemoth
that will not listen neither to myself as individual nor to myself as an
organization. What is there for me left to do?

The only thing it is left for me to do is to question the legitimacy of the
WMF as the leadership organization of the Wikimedia movement, understanding
leadership as the capacity to listen to many individual voices and act in a
way that is beneficial to all of them. If the WMF is incapable of listening
to my individual voice, then I want either a reform in the WMF to include
people who are able to listen at the top of the hierarchy, or a new
organization who can listen and create a common vision out of what it
hears. Things like the Strategy process are supposed to help with this
goal, however I feel it doesn't offer the space for day to day activities
or to challenge participants with new ideas, then it has no use for me.

So yes, I will follow your advice and I will pick my battles, putting
myself first. In this case my battle from this moment on is to recognize
the authority of the Wikimedia movement as a whole, and build leadership
legitimacy for me and all those in the movement who are able to listen. I
do believe that such people exist in our movement (I know a few), and that
they have a very high capacity for listening, but they themselves are not
being heard, and that is extremely unfair, and it is something I would like
to correct because me and the movement would benefit greatly. And as you
said money is necessary, so it has to be paid.

@SJ: as you 

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[Frederick Noronha]

Dear David,

I'm really sorry to hear this, and feel your pain.

Having been through this in the past, I know (a bit) of how it feels.

I just disagree with your analysis of seeing money as a mere tool. It can
empower us, it can destroy us. Whoever said money is the root of all evil,
knew what s/he was talking about. It can disrupt the best of movements and
also make us selfish.

I hope I'm wrong here.

Fredericknoronha
In Goa, India.
+91-9822122436.

PS: Regardless of whether it's related or not, I'd like to make a general
observation: burnout over volunteer work can be a real (if unaddressed)
concern for many of us. Why do so many end up feeling so under-appreciated
and taken-for-granted? Are there some tools to cope with this?

-- Forwarded message -
From: David Cuenca Tudela 
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2018 at 03:56
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 


Since Ed Erhart didn't honor my request of posting in this mailing lists to
discuss the plans to appropriate the Wikimedia Blog for the Wikimedia
Foundation [1] (although I would have preferred that he had done it himself
as he is the visible face behind this change, and therefore the burden of
proof is on him to prove to the community that this is the right change), I
am posting to this list with the hope that it can be discussed with people
for whom these things matter.

The Wikimedia Blog [2] has the title "News from Wikipedia and the Wikimedia
movement", and in case you don't know it it is run by the WMF [3]. This
blog has been operating under the existing URL for many years, and I
believe there was a general satisfaction with the way is run, the quality
of the stories, the amount, etc. However, as I mentioned in the Phabricator
ticket [1] I find the idea of moving the blog to the Wikimedia Foundation
site not adequate and not in the spirit of the Wikimedia movement.

I do not find the intention to move the blog to the WMF site to be in the
spirit of the Wikimedia movement because our movement is a diverse field
that is based on the idea of "commons" [4], and I feel that the Wikimedia
Blog is one of those commons. As I see it now the blog sits in the middle
of the community, and although it is run by the WMF, it can be seen as a
shared space between the WMF, the affiliates, and the community. By moving
the blog to the WMF site, the blog would lose its status as a commons and
it would become "the blog of the WMF". I think that if the WMF wants a
blog, they can create a new one, but they should leave the existing blog as
it is, as a shared space.

Intentions like this makes me think that in the WMF there is not enough
"wisdom", that strange quality that I am trying to make important in our
movement without much success [5]. This lack of wisdom is not only present
in the WMF, also in our movement I percieve, if not lack of wisdom, at
least lack of empathy [6]. It saddens me and it makes me stressed.

Issues like this one about the blog make me think that the movement needs
dedicated people that cultivate wisdom and encyclopedic knowledge about the
movement (I might have the former, but not the later), and that we put the
qualities of those people to the service of our community. I feel like a
little kid who wants to play a nice game with his friends, and then he sees
a big bulldozer coming to destroy his playing field. If it is not clear for
you, the "bulldozer" is how I see the "corporate WMF" coming to destroy the
soul of what I love most.

Tracking these kind of "behind the scenes" events takes me too much time. I
feel that I have reached more than the maximum of my capacity as a
"volunteer" (ha, what a joke of a word), and that I would risk losing my
current job if I am caught again participating in the Wikimedia projects
during my work hours, which I do without restrain. Not only that, it also
takes most of my waking time, specially because the movement has grown so
big that I feel overwhelmed in my capacity as metapedian [7]. I also feel
that it has started affecting my mental health. I do not know if I am the
only one, but as it is right now contributing to the Wikimedia projects is
*very* stressful, and since it is my main activity, I don't have time to
wind down, and since I do it as a "volunteer", I do not have free time to
recover. I also fear that if I would not do it myself nobody else would do
it, and if nobody would take their individual responsibility seriously,
then nobody would care for the good things in this world, and if nobody
would take care of the good things in this world, then we better start
saying goodbye to it RIGHT NOW, because the world is a fucking mess and
nobody is standing up to say the things as they are, or as they should be.

I spent 14 years of my life in the Wikimedia projects with various degrees
of involvement, working for free, and receiving compensation [8], and I
must say that the quality of my work has been exactly the same, my