Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?

2013-01-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
In my country health care insurance is compulsory. If anything this means
that everyone can see a doctor and believe it or not, investment in health
care is beneficial to the wealth of a nation.

I am appalled that people consider health care something that is best left
to the individual. It means that everybody has to pay the same amount
irrespective if they can afford it.

Please study the subject and YES, the WMF is in the USA however having a
health care policy for its employees is a best practice if you care for
your employees.
Thanks,
 GerardM


On 5 January 2013 11:11, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:

 On Saturday, January 5, 2013, James Salsman wrote:

  Michael Snow wrote:
  
  ... You think that having people mortgage their future and simply
   giving them more cash, which they don't ultimately enjoy other
   than to pay loans at distressed interest rates, is a greater benefit
   to them than providing the best insurance coverage we can offer?
 
  No, I didn't mean to imply anything like that. If a typical working
  age American's immediate family suffers catastrophic medical expenses,
  it's most likely going to be one of their parents, who aren't covered
  by the Foundation's or any other employer's plan. Medicare only pays
  for 60 days of hospitalization, with copayments totaling about $30,000
  for the following 60 days, and then it stops paying altogether. (See
  e.g. http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7768.pdf ) In any case, most
  Americans who enter bankruptcy because of medical expenses have on
  average about $45,000 of debt, which amounts to 2.2 years of the
  difference between the mean salary of Wikimedia and Mozilla Foundation
  junior software engineers. It's not like the difference between being
  able to save a loved one from bankruptcy and keeping them in the
  hospital when they need it would displace existing health insurance or
  even make a serious dent in retirement savings.


 This is a bad idea because it puts the responsibility of saving/investing
 that money on the employee.

 Also without healthcare insurance simple everyday costs can be astronomical
 (prescriptions etc.).

 So all that would happen is those employees would have to organise their
 own healthcare, and would probably not get as good a deal as the foundation
 can arrange.



 
  And that brings up another important point: What kind of talent does
  the WMF forgo by not being able to offer employees competitive
  retirement savings?  I suggest that there are very good reasons that
  all the additional Glassdoor reviews in the past week didn't really
  move the needle in satisfaction or recommendation scores. If anything
  the Foundation should be exceeding market rate to make up for its
  inability to provide equity participation plans for retirement savings
  which commercial firms can offer.


 As a charity the foundation has a responsibility to balance hiring the best
 talent with spending too frivolously.

 So the foundation should NOT throw money at staff without showing that
 paying extra would bring the charity significant increases in value.

 I know programmers on a par with my talent who are perfectly content
 earning significantly less than I do. So this is not a case of the best
 costs the most.


 
  Richard Symonds wrote:
  
   I would object to the precedent being set that donors from around the
   world, however old or young, are able to directly decide the salaries
 of
   staff at the WMF
 
  I am not suggesting allowing donors to set salary levels, only to
  express their opinions as to whether they would object to the
  Foundation meeting market labor pay, or exceeding it to compensate for
  the inability to offer equity participation. Since the only objections
  raised against competitive pay have been that it would be an
  irresponsible use of donor's money, why not find out from the
  donor's whether they actually share that view? The worst that could
  happen would be that we would find that donors agree with the status
  quo.
 
   I would also have an issue with donors being bombarded with emails...
 
  A representative sample of 384 donors is sufficient to establish the
  answer with 95% confidence. I am not suggesting asking all however
  many million there have been.



 I call this number the magic 384, it's a common rookie mistake when
 designing surveys for a million people.

 With a sample size of 384 you do get 95% confidence, with a confidence
 interval of 5%. So the data is fairly meaningless (if 49% of your
 respondents say X then that could represent anything from 44 to 54 percent
 of the population).

 You need around 12000 for any solid degree of confidence. And I believe we
 have a lot more than a million donors across a wide variety of cultures.

 Please don't just throw out numbers like this unless you know what you are
 taking about.

 Tom




 
   we should be saving our 'communication points' for something more
  important.
 
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-05 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:56:52 -0600, Mark wrote:

On 1/4/13 9:57 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:41:06 +0100, Nikola Smolenski wrote:



I guess I could write much more. But at the end, I have no 
solution.
I could imagine some partial solutions for some of the problems, 
but

nothing that could really bring Wikipedia to days of old.



Certainly, it will not. For the very same reason you mention: less 
not covered topics, more complexity, higher editing standards.


Yes, this is the main problem I've run into trying to recruit new
Wikipedia editors: less low-hanging fruit, at least on en.wiki 
(things

are different on smaller wikis). Fewer topics of widespread general
interest are completely article-less compared to a few years ago, so
there's less scope to e.g. write a 1-paragraph stub about [[Mahmoud
Abbas]] and feel you've contributed significantly. *And* you can no
longer do so just by jotting down a few things you remember off the
top of your head, since the standards for verifiability have gone up
considerably.



Concerning the low-hanging fruit, I am ambivalent on this point, and I 
was arguing both ways on this list in the past.


On one side, I personally had no problems finding my topics in English 
Wikipedia. Just several examples:
1. The bulk of my contribution are the topics related to human 
geography and history of Russia. The sources for these topics are 
predominantly in Russian, this is why most of these articles are 
one-line stubs or do not exist. As a Russian speaker, having access to 
Russian sources, I am able to source these articles.
2. Sometimes I write articles about NRHP listings, often to be able to 
use my own photographs. This is not particularly difficult, since some 
of them have the nomination forms online, and others usually have enough 
info. It just requires some time to search for the sources and to digest 
them.
3. I have a number of books on art and artists at home, in all possible 
languages, and sometimes I use them to write or expand existing 
articles.
4. I tried my own field, which is nanophysics, and it did not go very 
well. Once I had an incident on Wikiproject:Physics, trying to argue 
that some stuff is textbook material, but was overruled by majority. 
Then I just unwatched the project and never came back. Occasionally, I 
edit the articles in my field, and I have several in my watchlist, but 
ths is certainly not my main activity.


The conclusion is that I never had problems to finding topics (and I 
have more interests and more special sources, even if these get filled 
up at some point), but on the other hand I am not exactly a typical 
person from the street - I speak several languages, have extensive 
academic experience, including writing books and review articles, and I 
have a broad range of interests. Whereas this is kind of our picture of 
a Wikipedian, the reality is much more broad. An American teenager 
speaking only English and only interested in computer games may feel it 
differently.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?

2013-01-05 Thread Thomas Morton
If you know nothing about surveys or statistics it is probably a good idea
not to describe a properly calculated metric (yes, I sat down and did the
math) as absurd, and then claim efficacy of your own informal survey.

Just sayin.

Incidentally I am not sure your point about the glassdoor reviews really
rebuts mine re the value of paying more money.

If we pay more to the current staff will they be a lot more productive
(hint; this doesn't often equate in the way you'd expect) or wil lthose
hard problems become easier?

And does increased wage offerings attract more competent staff? Again, this
does not always work out as you expect.

James, please don't take this the wrong way but all of your contribution so
far seems to be Google educated, without any practical experience to
guide your words. I'm sorry if that is not the case, but you do appear to
be rolling out a lot of the rookie viewpoints on many different fronts.

Tom

On Saturday, January 5, 2013, James Salsman wrote:

 Again, I am not suggesting canceling anyone's health insurance or
 replacing it with increased salary. I am only trying to say that in
 the case of when a parent or sibling faces catastrophic medical
 expenses in the U.S., just over two years of the difference between
 typical junior software engineer pay at the Wikimedia and Mozilla
 foundations is the same amount that the average American who enters
 bankruptcy because of medical expenses has in debt.

  On 5 January 2013 11:11, Thomas Morton 
  morton.tho...@googlemail.comjavascript:;
 wrote:
 
  So the foundation should NOT throw money at staff without showing that
  paying extra would bring the charity significant increases in value.

 If the nine reviews added to
 http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Wikimedia-Foundation-Reviews-E38331.htm
 over the past two weeks does not establish that, then I can't imagine
 anything will.

  A representative sample of 384 donors is sufficient to establish the
  answer with 95% confidence. I am not suggesting asking all however
  many million there have been.
 
  I call this number the magic 384, it's a common rookie mistake when
  designing surveys for a million people.
 
  With a sample size of 384 you do get 95% confidence, with a confidence
  interval of 5%. So the data is fairly meaningless (if 49% of your
  respondents say X then that could represent anything from 44 to 54
 percent
  of the population).

 If my preliminary informal survey of a much smaller number of donors
 is representative, then the results will be much closer to 100%
 agreeing that the Foundation should meet or exceed market pay than
 50%.

  You need around 12000 for any solid degree of confidence. And I believe
 we
  have a lot more than a million donors across a wide variety of cultures.

 That is absurdly excessive. There has never been a Foundation donor
 survey of more than 3,760 donors, and that number was only chosen
 because of a requirement to measure fine grained demographics in
 categories for which few respondents were expected. 384 is plenty to
 resolve a yes/no or below/meet/exceed question at the 95% confidence
 level unless anyone has any actual evidence that the result is likely
 to be close.

 I am convinced that if asked, donors would think it is irresponsible
 to pay so little that Oracle employees are more satisfied.

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Argentina Monthly Report, December 2012

2013-01-05 Thread Emmanuel Engelhart
Le 05/01/2013 05:03, Osmar Valdebenito a écrit :
 == «Wikipedia in the classroom» in Guarani language ==
 
 On mid-December, Wikimedia Argentina published the first edition of its
 booklet “Wikipedia in the classroom” in an indigenous language, like
 Guarani. “Vikipetã mbo’eha kotýpe” is also the first publication about
 Wikipedia in Guarani language and any other American indigenous language.
 
 The goal of “Wikipedia in the classroom”, both in Spanish and Guarani, is
 to help teachers to understand what is Wikipedia, how it works and how they
 can use it in an useful way. Most students already use Wikipedia so it is
 really important that teachers know what to do.
 
 “Wikipedia in the classroom” is an initiative launched in 2010 by Wikimedia
 Argentina with the support of different institutions, including the
 Education portal of the Argentine government, educ.ar. They released an
 special website about the project. Wikimedia Argentina will print 500
 booklets of the Guarani edition to be distributed in schools and other
 educational institutions, and we expect to publish new editions in other
 indigenous languages in 2013.
 
 Guarani Wikipedia or Vikipetã was released in 2005, but lacks more active
 volunteers (currently, it has less than 20). Guaraní (avañe’ẽ) is spoken by
 8 million people and is the official language of Paraguay, Bolivia and
 Corrientes Province in Argentina, being one of the most used indigenous
 American languages currently. Wikimedia Argentina in the past years have
 started different projects to increase the usage and development of the
 Guarani Wikipedia, teaching its use to native speakers, something that was
 recognized by the Chamber of Deputies of the Province of Buenos Aires. We
 hope that this initiative can attract more speakers of that language to
 participate in projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I just created a first and fresh offline version of Wikipedia in
Guarani. You may find it at http://www.kiwix.org

The bundled version with Kiwix is available here:
http://download.kiwix.org/portable/wikipedia_gn_all.zip

Hope this can help.

Kind regards
Emamnuel




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage project launch/migration update

2013-01-05 Thread Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
 I had never seen those pages, and also could not edit, seems too complex for
me :P, but CBrown already did, thanks.

On 5 January 2013 10:08, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, 05/01/2013 10:41:

  Thank you,

 The importation almost over, just missing the namespace Wikivoyage, now
 we have
 to start cleaning, and... when this page http://www.wikivoyage.org/ will
 be
 updated?


 Edit it yourself at https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Www.wikivoyage.org_*
 *template/temphttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Www.wikivoyage.org_template/temp

 Nemo


 __**_
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: 
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 97 97 18 884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?

2013-01-05 Thread ENWP Pine
James,

I'm a little confounded as to why you're still looking to Glassdoor as your 
primary source of information on employee satisfaction after Gayle indicated
that she has much more comprehensive data on this subject from the employee
survey.

Also, I will stand up and say that I, for one, am not a fan of WMF trying to 
match market pay in the SF area. I am interested WMF in retaining qualified
and motivated employees, and I am interested in employee job satisfaction 
which includes pay as only one of many factors. If pay was a widespread 
problem then I'm sure Gayle and Eric would be seeing that. I expect that,
as with many nonprofits, the mission of the nonprofit and the satisfaction
of working on the mission with like-minded people will compensate for the 
lower monetary compensation.

It seems to me that your concerns about HR issues have been generally well 
addressed by Eric and Gayle. Gayle has also agreed to do an IRC office hour, 
which would be a good opportunity for you to ask more questions if you're 
still not clear on the applicability of Glassdoor vs. the applicability of 
the employee survey data.

Pine
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?

2013-01-05 Thread David Gerard
On 5 January 2013 19:32, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Also, I will stand up and say that I, for one, am not a fan of WMF trying to
 match market pay in the SF area. I am interested WMF in retaining qualified
 and motivated employees, and I am interested in employee job satisfaction
 which includes pay as only one of many factors. If pay was a widespread
 problem then I'm sure Gayle and Eric would be seeing that. I expect that,
 as with many nonprofits, the mission of the nonprofit and the satisfaction
 of working on the mission with like-minded people will compensate for the
 lower monetary compensation.


Anyone in IT knows that there's such a thing as charity scale, where
you get paid less because you're working for a nonprofit in exchange
for less stress and/or doing actual good in the world.`


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?

2013-01-05 Thread Andy Mabbett
On Jan 5, 2013 7:51 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 Anyone in IT knows that there's such a thing as charity scale, where
 you get paid less because you're working for a nonprofit in exchange
 for less stress and/or doing actual good in the world.`

Less stress? Wikipedia?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-05 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 We have been, to some extent, the victims of our own success.  We grew
 exponentially and not organically, and given the roots of our community,
 the usual group structural forms were eschewed. There was also practically
 no money for anything for a very long time (our fundraisers now raise as
 much in a day as they did in the entire year when I first joined up), and
 very few employees who kept the operation together with shoestrings and
 sealing wax, while everything else was left to the editorial communities
 (and the volunteer developer communities) to keep things going. This
 flattened hierarchy of leadership worked reasonably well with a smaller
 editorial community that had barely scratched the surface of content
 creation, but quickly showed itself to be impractical when editors joined
 in droves - many of them focusing on hand-to-hand combat with vandals.
 Those who loathed wasting their time cleaning up after vandals were glad to
 have this newer cadre join them; however, there was a palpable difference
 in their reason for becoming part of the community, and when the number of
 highly active contributors more than doubled over a short period of time,
 it was impossible to provide an effective process to help them learn the
 technical, policy, and cultural expectations. Efforts to try to remedy some
 of these issues have been largely unsuccessful, with an overwhelming
 proliferation of often-conflicting policies that are nearly
 incomprehensible to the uninitiated, an overabundance of badly written and
 poorly descriptive templates, and a dependence on automated tools for
 social interaction.



The lack of flagged revisions is a key contributor to this state of
affairs. The English Wikipedia is ridiculously vulnerable to vandalism. Is
it surprising that that vulnerability attracts large numbers of vandals and
vandal fighters?

Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-05 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 03:11:03 +, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:


The lack of flagged revisions is a key contributor to this state of
affairs. The English Wikipedia is ridiculously vulnerable to 
vandalism. Is
it surprising that that vulnerability attracts large numbers of 
vandals and

vandal fighters?

Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Not really. Russian Wikipedia has flagged revisions for almost five 
years now, and the situation with conflict resolution there is 
dramatically worse than in English Wikipedia, with assuming bad faith 
basically being the only means to move forward.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l