Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…

2019-01-28 Thread Pine W
Hi Yaroslav,

I'm not aware of such wide consensus against paid editing in general.
Wikimedians in Residence, for example, often seem to be paid contributors,
and I can't recall the last time that I heard criticism of the concept of
Wikimedians in Residence. However, you may know more about the consensus on
diverse projects than I do, and I would be interested in reading a
representative sample of links to policies and discussions about this topic
on various projects.

Personally I am against undisclosed paid editing, and I would like to see
WMF do much more to detect, penalize, and deter undisclosed paid editing.
But there are also people and organizations such as well-intentioned WiRs
and their sponsoring institutions who are willing to contribute usefully to
the projects with paid time. I think that paid benevolent contributions to
the projects should be encouraged, for example from organizations like the
American Psychological Association and Stanford University.

I think that the professionalization of Wikimedia is likely to continue
over time. The learning curve is steep for many on-wiki tasks, and we have
a limited supply of knowledgeable volunteers who cannot possibly fulfill
all of our readers' wishes and the needs for behind the scenes support
(such as responses to OTRS tickets, conflict of interest investigations,
translations, and personalized help for new contributors) with the limited
supply of time from knowledgeable volunteers. If results from increased
professionalization are good and there aren't problems with conflict of
interest or noteworthy conflicts between populations of volunteers and
well-intentioned professionals, then I'm okay with this trend and in some
ways I would encourage it because the projects benefit from having more
knowledgeable and well-intentioned participants.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 4:28 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Whatever the reasoning is, I think we should accept that at the moment paid
> editing is universally regarded very negatively in virtually all projects.
> Non-monetary prizes for competitions may or may not be ok, everything else
> is most likely not considered to be ok even if does not explicitly
> contradict to any policies.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 5:07 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > I was thinking about actually bounties, like in bug bounties from
> > larger software vendors. We have some "bugs", like spellchecking,
> > which is pretty easy to quantify, and that can be done as part of
> > bounties with cash. Yes, the ugly word, paid editing! OMG!
> >
> > But quite frankly, why should we not? ¢1 per fixed single word typo
> > that leads to one-less spelling error? Perhaps even $1 per
> > spellchecked page? Delayed one week to see if anyone reverts the
> > edits?
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 4:17 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > In the Basque wikipedia we are doing monthly contests on different
> > topics, and some of them are focused on quality (i.e. adding references
> and
> > images). There are some prices every month, usually books or thing
> related
> > to technology. And people usually like to participate for the fun, and
> for
> > the prize.
> > > 
> > > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf
> > of Benjamin Lees 
> > > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:14 AM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…
> > >
> > > It's interesting that you chose spellchecking as your example.  On the
> > > English Wikipedia, I tend to see that as an activity that some people
> > > actually do find fun (or relaxing).  Plus, spelling errors (or
> perceived
> > > spelling errors[1]) are something that unregistered users really like
> > > fixing.  But maybe that varies significantly across language editions.
> > >
> > > In any event, spelling errors are probably the case where eventualism
> is
> > > most appropriate.  It is rare that someone will be misinformed because
> of
> > > spelling mistakes, and they serve a useful signaling function in making
> > it
> > > clear that a given piece of content has probably not undergone peer
> > > review.  And rather than driving people away, they tend to draw them
> > > in—Cunningham's law[2] never fails.
> > >
> > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ENGVAR
> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:55 PM John Erling Blad 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Both in Wikipedia and other parts of the Wikimedia-universe there are
> > > > a lot of jobs that should be done, but are not so popular. Because
> > > > they are not done, people get tired and backs away from whatever they
> > > > are doing.
> > > >
> > > > I could give several examples, but lets say spellchecking. It is not
> > > > fun doing spellchecking, even if you are spellchecking something
> > > > written by a professor. Instead of doing 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Questions about proposed new Chapter agreement for Wikimedia Portugal

2019-01-28 Thread Chris Keating
Hi  Gonçalo,

Looks to me like someone in the WMF has decided that, given the recent
challenges with WMPT, it's a good idea to create a chapter agreement that's
somewhat more restrictive in terms of trademark usage and reporting as a
way of mitigating any future problems the chapter might encounter.

Of course, I may be misinterpreting this (which is easy to do). But if
you're someone in the WMF whose job it is to worry about the risks of
various courses of action, including signing chapter agreements, then this
would probably look like a sensible thing to do.

From a broader perspective... well, it does look like we're creating a new
kind of chapter with slightly fewer rights as a result of the chapter
encountering governance issues. This is a new way of approaching this kind
of issue (many chapters and the WMF have all had significant governance
issues at some point, without anyone wanting to renegotiate the founding
agreements between them), and I am not sure it's healthy, at least not
without being embedded in a broader framework.

Pretty much the only thing you can do in the circumstances is go back to
the WMF with queries and/or a counter-proposal. This is what is normally
what happens in contract negotiations, including within the Wikimedia
movement, and generally speaking these proposals are usually open to
negotiation.

It's already clear from the WMPT situation (and others) that how the
movement deals with 'difficult situations' involving affiliates is pretty
unclear. I think there are questions to ask about the right balance between
investigation, development support, conflict resolution, and risk
mitigation/disciplinary measures. There are also questions about whose job
it is to do all of these things. And it's not helped by the fact that there
is no clear definition of what a chapter (or any affiliate) is for, and
what the expectations of the affiliate/WMF relationship should be.

Chris



On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:58 AM GoEthe.wiki  wrote:

> (sorry for cross-posting, but since this is a time sensitive issue, I would
> like to get as many comments as possible)
>
> Dear all,
>
> Last 30 October, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) decided it needed more time
> to evaluate the case of Wikimedia Portugal, it extended the suspension of
> Wikimedia Portugal, and said that they must use the time that would
> otherwise be the termination period for the Chapter Agreement between
> Wikimedia Portugal and the Wikimedia Foundation, therefore giving notice of
> termination of the Chapter Agreement. WMF also said that if Wikimedia
> Portugal fully and completely resolved the issues described above and
> otherwise remained compliant with its obligations as a chapter - which
> happened, and the suspension was lifted - then WMF would sign a new chapter
> agreement with Wikimedia Portugal. The current chapter agreement therefore
> terminates this 31 January. On 25 January WMF sent us a new proposal of
> Chapter Agreement for Wikimedia Portugal to sign. It can be seen here, side
> by side with the current Chapter Agreement Wikimedia Portugal has with the
> WMF:
>
> https://pt.wikimedia.org/wiki/Utilizador:Alchimista/Chapter_Agreement
>
> This new proposal differs in many ways from the Chapter Agreement currently
> in place, and from the ones other chapters have signed (at least the ones
> that are public) and we have several questions about it, so we would like
> to ask the Wikimedia Portugal associates, other affiliates and the
> Wikimedia community in general to help us by clarifying some of these
> questions and weigh in on the advantages and disadvantages of continuing
> being a WMF affiliate under these changed conditions.
>
> We have also accordingly asked from the WMF a two month extension of the
> current Chapter Agreement, to allow for proper discussion of their
> proposal.
>
>
> Main concerns:
>
> These are some of the main differences we found that are concerning us
> (first in italic the current agreement, second in bold the new proposal)
>
>-
>
>“This Chapter is authorized to cover the geographic region of the
>Portugal. The Foundation will not seek to create or authorize the
> creation
>of any additional chapter within this geographic region. The Foundation
>will not engage with other local organizations without consulting with
> the
>chapter.” (Current CA) disappears entirely, and becomes “WMF hereby
>recognizes Chapter as part of the Wikimedia movement supporting its
> Focus
>Area.” (i.e. Portugal)
>-
>
>Chapter shall do business as “Wikimedia Portugal, an independent
>organization for Wikimedia volunteers in Portugal”, irrespective of its
>locally incorporated name. - this seems unique among chapters, and in
>our view conflicts  with the possibility of affiliates including both
>volunteers and professionals, as well as both Wikimedians and people
>otherwise engaged and interested in programs, such as teachers,
> librarians
>and