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

[David Cuenca Tudela]

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 it seems possible in my view to donate money either as an
individual or as an organization to another individual/organization without
expecting anything from them. And I do not have any information about that
fact having a negative impact on any charity organisation that has donated
to the WMF in the past. Can you please explain how it would affect
negatively the impact status of the WMF or any affiliate if they would
donate money with no conditions attached?

2) Can you cite any legal precedent where given donations was considered as
taking any kind of role?

3) How is that different from the risk that volunteers are already facing?
Do you have any example of a volunteer suffering consequences by receiving
a grant from the WMF?

Regards,
Micru

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:19 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> 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, even by giving grants or donations that specifically
> focus on the performance of admin/sysop functions of individuals  it could
> be consider as taking such a role.
>
> for the individuals sadly volunteers within the community have already
> experienced the dark side of what it is to be a wikimedian, to step that up
> to receiving some form of payment would potentially make people responsible
> for the content or seen as responsible putting them at greater risk.
>
>
>
> On 26 May 2018 at 22:49, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
>
> > 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 a organization is paying the
> person
> > in exchange of some tasks. Which is basically the definition of a job.
> >
> > On the other hand I see a "community-supported volunteer" as a volunteer
> > who receives a grant/donation to be able to support himself/herself while
> > doing whatever he/she feels like doing in the project (with oversight of
> > the community), which normally are core activities that cannot be bundled
> > up in a "project grant".
> >
> > Do these definitions make the distinction clear?
> >
> > Gnangarra, given those definitions, could you please explain how giving a
> > grant/donation to a person shifts the WMF or an affiliate to being
> legally
> > responsible for the actions of this person? As I see it if I make a
> > donation to a person I am not responsible for their actions, but I might
> be
> > wrong.
> > And in which way would that expose them in their countries?
> >
> > I would also like to express my gratitude to you for participating in
> this
> > conversation with a simple thank you.
> >
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> Order
> here
>  reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
> .
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] Kio faras vin feliĉa ĉi-semajne? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 27 May 2018)

[Gnangarra]

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/
> pipermail/wikidata/2018-May/012090.html.
>
>
> A large issue of *The Signpost* was published with several
> thought-provoking pieces:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-05-24.
>
>
> Multilingual captions will be an early feature of structured data on
> Commons. A request for feedback is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Get_involved/Feedback_requests/Multilingual_
> Captions_and_MediaInfo
>
>
> What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
> language.
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here

.
___
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, 

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

[Pine W]

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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-05-24.


Multilingual captions will be an early feature of structured data on
Commons. A request for feedback is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Get_involved/Feedback_requests/Multilingual_
Captions_and_MediaInfo


What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
language.


Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Gnangarra]

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, even by giving grants or donations that specifically
focus on the performance of admin/sysop functions of individuals  it could
be consider as taking such a role.

for the individuals sadly volunteers within the community have already
experienced the dark side of what it is to be a wikimedian, to step that up
to receiving some form of payment would potentially make people responsible
for the content or seen as responsible putting them at greater risk.



On 26 May 2018 at 22:49, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> 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 a organization is paying the person
> in exchange of some tasks. Which is basically the definition of a job.
>
> On the other hand I see a "community-supported volunteer" as a volunteer
> who receives a grant/donation to be able to support himself/herself while
> doing whatever he/she feels like doing in the project (with oversight of
> the community), which normally are core activities that cannot be bundled
> up in a "project grant".
>
> Do these definitions make the distinction clear?
>
> Gnangarra, given those definitions, could you please explain how giving a
> grant/donation to a person shifts the WMF or an affiliate to being legally
> responsible for the actions of this person? As I see it if I make a
> donation to a person I am not responsible for their actions, but I might be
> wrong.
> And in which way would that expose them in their countries?
>
> I would also like to express my gratitude to you for participating in this
> conversation with a simple thank you.
>
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here

.
___
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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

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 a organization is paying the person
in exchange of some tasks. Which is basically the definition of a job.

On the other hand I see a "community-supported volunteer" as a volunteer
who receives a grant/donation to be able to support himself/herself while
doing whatever he/she feels like doing in the project (with oversight of
the community), which normally are core activities that cannot be bundled
up in a "project grant".

Do these definitions make the distinction clear?

Gnangarra, given those definitions, could you please explain how giving a
grant/donation to a person shifts the WMF or an affiliate to being legally
responsible for the actions of this person? As I see it if I make a
donation to a person I am not responsible for their actions, but I might be
wrong.
And in which way would that expose them in their countries?

I would also like to express my gratitude to you for participating in this
conversation with a simple thank you.

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] [Wmfall] Announcing the Wikimedia Foundation's Technical Engagement team

[Gergo Tisza]

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: while some of the largest problems
with our open source ecosystem (such as documentation and the lack of
public roadmaps/guidace) have been settled or are being settled
reassuringly, code review remains a pain point. And while that's something
that will need the support of all Technology/Audiences teams, there is
still need for a team that can push for that; I hope Technical Engagement
will be empowered to do so.
___
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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Gnangarra]

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  wrote:

> > 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 Wennersten, 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 POV pushing we have no
> > routines in place, and no roles like he steward who can help out for
> > these cases.
> >
> > I also have only positive experience interacting with stewards, both in
> > their willingness to help and alertness. And they have a very good tone
> > in conversations. And they are a bit separated from the communities.
> >
> > And my loose thought in the end of my starting mail, was more to be open
> > to having paid something like POV-stewards who can get involved in tough
> > POVedits. And that these can offload the burden on admin when things
> > getting nasty
> >
> > I am not a supporter of paid editors, and think it would be too
> > controversial having paid administrators.
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Den 2018-05-26 kl. 09:38, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:
> > > 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 been elected to
> > > perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It
> > might
> > > be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about
> > > "profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation
> > > becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a
> > > full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of
> > > professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training,
> > > ethics regulation, and licensing.
> > >
> > > In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time
> > > based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel
> > > that the main need is talent retention while keeping the
> volunteer-driven
> > > spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing
> > > changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and
> > > consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.
> > >
> > >  From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views.
> After
> > > this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved
> and
> > > see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the
> > > community, then request to the community the necessary action to make
> it
> > > happen.
> > >
> > > I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this
> > mailing
> > > list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and
> > > promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that
> > > there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone
> reading
> > > this message to at least join this conversation.
> > >
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

> 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 Wennersten, 
wrote:

> 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 POV pushing we have no
> routines in place, and no roles like he steward who can help out for
> these cases.
>
> I also have only positive experience interacting with stewards, both in
> their willingness to help and alertness. And they have a very good tone
> in conversations. And they are a bit separated from the communities.
>
> And my loose thought in the end of my starting mail, was more to be open
> to having paid something like POV-stewards who can get involved in tough
> POVedits. And that these can offload the burden on admin when things
> getting nasty
>
> I am not a supporter of paid editors, and think it would be too
> controversial having paid administrators.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Den 2018-05-26 kl. 09:38, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:
> > 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 been elected to
> > perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It
> might
> > be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about
> > "profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation
> > becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a
> > full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of
> > professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training,
> > ethics regulation, and licensing.
> >
> > In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time
> > based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel
> > that the main need is talent retention while keeping the volunteer-driven
> > spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing
> > changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and
> > consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.
> >
> >  From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views. After
> > this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and
> > see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the
> > community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it
> > happen.
> >
> > I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this
> mailing
> > list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and
> > promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that
> > there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone reading
> > this message to at least join this conversation.
> >
> > 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,
> 
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Anders Wennersten]

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 POV pushing we have no 
routines in place, and no roles like he steward who can help out for 
these cases.


I also have only positive experience interacting with stewards, both in 
their willingness to help and alertness. And they have a very good tone 
in conversations. And they are a bit separated from the communities.


And my loose thought in the end of my starting mail, was more to be open 
to having paid something like POV-stewards who can get involved in tough 
POVedits. And that these can offload the burden on admin when things 
getting nasty


I am not a supporter of paid editors, and think it would be too 
controversial having paid administrators.


Anders






Den 2018-05-26 kl. 09:38, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:

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 been elected to
perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It might
be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about
"profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation
becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a
full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of
professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training,
ethics regulation, and licensing.

In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time
based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel
that the main need is talent retention while keeping the volunteer-driven
spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing
changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and
consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.

 From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views. After
this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and
see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the
community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it
happen.

I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this mailing
list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and
promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that
there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone reading
this message to at least join this conversation.

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, 




___
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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

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 been elected to
perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It might
be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about
"profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation
becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a
full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of
professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training,
ethics regulation, and licensing.

In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time
based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel
that the main need is talent retention while keeping the volunteer-driven
spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing
changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and
consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.

From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views. After
this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and
see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the
community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it
happen.

I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this mailing
list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and
promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that
there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone reading
this message to at least join this conversation.

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,