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

gt; To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing? > > I fully support Micrus summary and comments, I see it them very up to > the point I raised in my first input in this thread. > > And while I see this as a general problem fo

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

] On Behalf Of Anders Wennersten Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 1:36 PM To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing? I fully support Micrus summary and comments, I see it them very up to the point I raised in my first input in this thread

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

I thank my colleagues for this valuable discussion. Here are a few more thoughts from my end: * While my efforts for the next few months will focus on new contributors, the issues with administrative backlogs, COI patrolling and investigations, and a myriad of other issues which "mid-career" or

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

I fully support Micrus summary and comments, I see it them very up to the point I raised in my first input in this thread. And while I see this as a general problem for all versions/projects, I can see that a start on enwp would make sense. It has the biggest number of edits but also being

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

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop? First of all I must say that what I might say as an answer to those questions reflects my understanding of this topic now, which is different than when the conversation

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

Hi Pine, On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 4:31 AM, Pine W wrote: > This sounds like another good question for Nicole. Indeed, but she might be busy or in vacation. If she doesn't get involved into this conversation in the next days I will open a new thread about it. > * There are a number of people who

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

Hi Micru, On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:36 AM, David Cuenca Tudela wrote: > Pine, > It is nice of you that you thought about including these topics in the WMF > strategy process, which I assume it is an ongoing process and not a one-off > event. However as the 2017 cycle ended, I am unable to find

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

Hoi, Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop? Is it only for admins and if so why and, is it only for English Wikipedia and if so why? Thanks, GerardM On 28 May 2018 at 15:48, David Cuenca Tudela wrote: > Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards

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

Pine, It is nice of you that you thought about including these topics in the WMF strategy process, which I assume it is an ongoing process and not a one-off event. However as the 2017 cycle ended, I am unable to find the way to incorporate new ideas into the process. I would have expected to find

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

Based on the limited information that I have, it seems to me that there are already numerous contribtors who are paid to engage in promotional activity on Wikipedia, whether declared or undeclared, and the community does not have adequate human resources to patrol and investigate all of these.

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

Hey Yaroslav, thanks for sharing your view. I find very interesting what you mention, and if you have experienced yourself it must be a real effect on people. Five years ago, when I was awarded an IEG grant, I didn't feel the same effect on me. In fact it was quite the opposite, I felt under

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

I am actually fully with Gnangarra here. I am also an unpaid volunteer who invested a lot of hours of my free time into various Wikimedia projects (and mostly getting a lot of shit in reward, but this is not the point now). I did have an experience of disagreements with people who were either paid

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

Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards the community and that is laudable. As you, over the years I have also spent countless hours in this community, and I do not regret it either, I feel it has been and it still is a good investment of my time, and my dedication. You, as

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

I think thats a little disingenuous to say that we dont take care of our volunteers and that its a negative message to not give some financial reward to admins. We came here by choice, whether we are here for a long time or a short time we chose to add to the sum of all knowledge for myriad of

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

> My view is that the Foundation was suddenly (but not without warning) > made legally responsible for its own content after Trump made hosting > providers responsible for facilitating online prostitution > advertising, at pretty much the same time the GDPR went in to effect. I do not know enough

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

> I am open to more input, and more exchange of views. My view is that the Foundation was suddenly (but not without warning) made legally responsible for its own content after Trump made hosting providers responsible for facilitating online prostitution advertising, at pretty much the same time

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] 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] 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

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

>> Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and >> hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential >> characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia? > There is a difference, and that is the degree of professionalization. The > role of admin is not a

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

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:16 PM, James Salsman wrote: > Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and > hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential > characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia? > There is a difference, and

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

>... about the classical employer-employee relationship, I am totally > against it. The reason is that there is so much effort wasted tracking > and keeping people accountable Priyanka Mandikal implemented a way to keep paid editors accountable using reputation tracking two years ago:

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

Hoi, You compare two things that are not related and where there is a conflict of interest. As it is, we are severely lacking in information in many of our Wikipedias. Given that not even percent of the humans in Wikidata is from Africa, the #AfricaGap is bigger than the #GenderGap (no percent vs

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

Thank you for this provocation, I share your concern. As a reader, it's disappointing to find material that looks like a press release, and intimidating to flag or edit without doing research into the editing history and editors involved. A quick, "back of the envelope" calculation I did

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

Hi Anders, I hear your worries. Indeed it seems that resisting the push is taking more effort than what the community can take under the current circumstances, or at least it doesn't look sustainable (the RfA chart shown in the last Signpost [1] is really clear on that regard). However, by