Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

1) The donations from the Wikimedia supporters do not have any strings attached, they are given in good faith with no expectations of anything back. There are many charities that donate to the WMF without any fixed metrics/kpi about what the WMF is doing with the money. Given these two precedents

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Kio faras vin feliĉa ĉi-semajne? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 27 May 2018)

Its raining around Cape town including the catchment areas On 27 May 2018 at 12:19, Pine W wrote: > The Wikidata development team released to production the first version of > Wikidata support of lexicographical data: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ >

[Wikimedia-l] Kio faras vin feliĉa ĉi-semajne? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 27 May 2018)

The Wikidata development team released to production the first version of Wikidata support of lexicographical data: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikidata/2018-May/012090.html. A large issue of *The Signpost* was published with several thought-provoking pieces:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

every grant from the WMF or affiliates have fixed metrics/kpi(key performance indicators) to ensure the grabt is doing what it set out to do, failing to do that would negatively impact its charity status. on the legal side the issue is centered around whether the wmf has any editorial oversight,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

I have the feeling that we need to clarify what it means to be a "paid admin" vs a "community-supported volunteer". In my definition, a "paid admin" is a person who receives a salary to perform a delimited function not necessarily aligned with his/her will. There is a contractual obligation where

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wmfall] Announcing the Wikimedia Foundation's Technical Engagement team

That is great news, congrats and thanks to all involved! Support of Wikimedia/MediaWiki developers and software reusers has gone through a quantum leap in the last year or so, and this is another solid step towards creating a more healthy FLOSS ecosystem. I'd also like to echo what Trey said:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

Having paid admins would shift the WMF or an affiliate in to being legally responsible for the content on Wikipedia, it would also potentailly expose those editors to additional issue in their own countries, or during their travel On 26 May 2018 at 17:52, David Cuenca Tudela

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

> it would be too controversial having paid administrators. Controversial for who? So far nobody stepped into this conversation to say that direct support of community members with community money is not ok for whatever reason they might have. Regards, Micru On Sat, 26 May 2018, 10:35 Anders

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

My own reflection reading this discussion is that there is a difference between vandalism and POV pushing. For vandalism we have better routines in place and also tools like ORES, and also a system of steward who can acts in cases of crosswikivandals For Pov pushing and especially cross wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, James Salsman wrote: > I'm not sure that's true. Whether it started as a game of Nomic or > not, almost all of the admins have been elected through a certainly > established process. > That someone does an activity or that this person has