Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Tanweer Morshed]

Hi David,

I wholeheartedly support your words. The Wikimedia movement relies on the
energy and enthusiasm of the Wikipedians or the volunteers from around the
world. Technology is a tool in this case, but not the driving agent. The
other tools which you mentioned are indeed important in the movement.

Regarding the practices that are running now, it's actually like, not
everything's wrong or negative. Of course there is way to explore new ideas
or practices, and that would definitely come out of spontaneous discussion
among volunteers. The movement is ever changing, so new practices and ideas
should come along the way and we must welcome such interactions or
discussions. The decision to accept or disregard of new ideas would also
rely upon the unanimous opinion. In some cases, some idea might work in a
specific part of the world, and not everywhere.


Thanks,
Tanweer

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Anders Wennersten 
wrote:

>
>
> Den 2016-03-01 kl. 11:01, skrev David Emrany:
>
>> The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes
>> rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies
>> of the movement are being created daily.
>>
>
> We all live in different realities, so please be careful to indicate that
> your reality is everyones reality
>
> In Sweden we have had the most profound increase in trust in Wikipedia the
> last six month, not least in conjunction to the 15 year anniversary  There
> have been several articled in our main media reporting both with good
> insight and giving credibility to Wikipedia. We have seen a continuous
> strong support from the Glam sector and also a significant change from
> School authorities, which now are staring to look mostly how to make best
> use of Wikipedia, and not as before only indicating the need to be
> observant of sources being used
>
> The affiliate here has just received the biggest grant yet on more then
> 300KUSD to put the result of wikipedia loves word heritage onto WIkidata.
> And  also our community is working better then ever and seeing regularly
> new editor (but we still have a problem of too few new ones)
>
> So here there is no scandal being known and what is happening around SF is
> not reported or known her in our media
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO
>>> "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of
>>> administrators".
>>> Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and
>>> suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they
>>> find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times
>>> dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of
>>> responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.
>>>
>>> However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors"
>>> and I
>>> consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site.
>>> It
>>> is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests
>>> it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would
>>> take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >>
>>> https://xkcd.com/1217/
>>>
>>> I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that
>>> cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers
>>> themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with
>>> the
>>> professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust
>>> to
>>> take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what
>>> it
>>> constitutes.
>>>
>>> When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like
>>> WOOF,
>>> or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could
>>> work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the
>>> movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it
>>> goes.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Micru
>>>
>>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Regards,
Tanweer
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Anders Wennersten]

Den 2016-03-01 kl. 11:01, skrev David Emrany:

The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes
rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies
of the movement are being created daily.


We all live in different realities, so please be careful to indicate 
that your reality is everyones reality


In Sweden we have had the most profound increase in trust in Wikipedia 
the last six month, not least in conjunction to the 15 year anniversary  
There have been several articled in our main media reporting both with 
good insight and giving credibility to Wikipedia. We have seen a 
continuous strong support from the Glam sector and also a significant 
change from School authorities, which now are staring to look mostly how 
to make best use of Wikipedia, and not as before only indicating the 
need to be observant of sources being used


The affiliate here has just received the biggest grant yet on more then 
300KUSD to put the result of wikipedia loves word heritage onto 
WIkidata. And  also our community is working better then ever and seeing 
regularly new editor (but we still have a problem of too few new ones)


So here there is no scandal being known and what is happening around SF 
is not reported or known her in our media


Anders






On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

Hi David,

you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO
"consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators".
Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and
suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they
find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times
dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of
responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.

However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors" and I
consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site. It
is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests
it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would
take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >>
https://xkcd.com/1217/

I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that
cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers
themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with the
professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust to
take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what it
constitutes.

When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like WOOF,
or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could
work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the
movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it
goes.

Cheers,
Micru


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-03-01 11:01, David Emrany wrote:


" .. WIKIMEDIA pornographers who are masquerading as champions of free
speech and free internet to promote their obscenities and lies in
India ... TO IMMEDIATELY PROHIBIT ANY FREE INTERNET ACCESS OVER MOBILE
DEVICES .. " [2]

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm

[2] 
http://trai.gov.in/Comments_Data/Organisation/India_Against_Corruption.pdf


David


Which likely means you are avoiding the list ban.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

David,

When I refer to the community I assume already that it has an intrinsic
imperfect representation and unclear boundaries, as it is characteristic to
open systems.

Given these blurry boundaries, at what point of the society does the asylum
begin or end? It is not enough with just "cleaning
of the stables" as you say, because the horses come and go freely and it is
an open question which degree of cleanliness they are more comfortable with.

You mention "fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency", but perhaps
they are also form part of the downsides of having an open community, and
every time it is an opportunity to do things better. There will be always
new enemies, and with an open attitude there will be also new friends.

The document you link seems to support "net neutrality", that concept that
sometimes we support, and sometimes we don't...

Cheers,
Micru

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:01 AM, David Emrany 
wrote:

> Dear David
>
> I respectfully disagree. My point is that the "community" you refer to
> is not a representative community at all. for eg. voices from Asia and
> Africa are not properly represented here.
>
> The community is incapable of policing itself because (to quote a
> prominent WP criticism site) "the inmates are running the asylum". It
> needs an external / independent person (Lila ?) to begin the cleaning
> of the stables, but the task was beyond her.
>
> The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes
> rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies
> of the movement are being created daily.
>
> To cite 1 instance, very recently, a prominent organisation, highly
> critical of WMF in India, managed to get the Zeropaid initiative
> banned in that country. The organisation is banned on Wikipedia,
> including for severe off-wiki harassment of our users [1]
>
> " .. WIKIMEDIA pornographers who are masquerading as champions of free
> speech and free internet to promote their obscenities and lies in
> India ... TO IMMEDIATELY PROHIBIT ANY FREE INTERNET ACCESS OVER MOBILE
> DEVICES .. " [2]
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm
>
> [2]
> http://trai.gov.in/Comments_Data/Organisation/India_Against_Corruption.pdf
>
> David
>
> On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO
> > "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of
> administrators".
>
> > Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and
> > suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they
> > find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times
> > dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of
> > responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.
> >
> > However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors"
> and I
> > consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site.
> It
> > is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests
> > it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would
> > take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >>
> > https://xkcd.com/1217/
> >
> > I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that
> > cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers
> > themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with
> the
> > professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust
> to
> > take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what
> it
> > constitutes.
> >
> > When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like
> WOOF,
> > or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could
> > work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the
> > movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it
> > goes.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> >
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Emrany]

Dear David

I respectfully disagree. My point is that the "community" you refer to
is not a representative community at all. for eg. voices from Asia and
Africa are not properly represented here.

The community is incapable of policing itself because (to quote a
prominent WP criticism site) "the inmates are running the asylum". It
needs an external / independent person (Lila ?) to begin the cleaning
of the stables, but the task was beyond her.

The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes
rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies
of the movement are being created daily.

To cite 1 instance, very recently, a prominent organisation, highly
critical of WMF in India, managed to get the Zeropaid initiative
banned in that country. The organisation is banned on Wikipedia,
including for severe off-wiki harassment of our users [1]

" .. WIKIMEDIA pornographers who are masquerading as champions of free
speech and free internet to promote their obscenities and lies in
India ... TO IMMEDIATELY PROHIBIT ANY FREE INTERNET ACCESS OVER MOBILE
DEVICES .. " [2]

[1] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm

[2] http://trai.gov.in/Comments_Data/Organisation/India_Against_Corruption.pdf

David

On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO
> "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators".

> Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and
> suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they
> find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times
> dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of
> responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.
>
> However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors" and I
> consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site. It
> is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests
> it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would
> take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >>
> https://xkcd.com/1217/
>
> I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that
> cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers
> themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with the
> professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust to
> take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what it
> constitutes.
>
> When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like WOOF,
> or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could
> work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the
> movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it
> goes.
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi David,

you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO
"consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators".
Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and
suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they
find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times
dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of
responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.

However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors" and I
consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site. It
is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests
it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would
take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >>
https://xkcd.com/1217/

I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that
cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers
themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with the
professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust to
take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what it
constitutes.

When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like WOOF,
or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could
work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the
movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it
goes.

Cheers,
Micru

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:58 AM, David Emrany  wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> It would be even nicer if we have more editors editing voluntarily
> instead of driving them away.
>
> In the present scenario a University of Minnesota report by Aaron Halfaker
> says
> "The declining number of editors is not due to the site's inability to
> keep longtime editors contributing. Instead it can't keep new editors
> from sticking around, due to an abrasive collective of editors and a
> system that is crushingly bureaucratic." [1]
>
> English Wikipedia's biggest problem today is its established
> syndicates of 90% white male "content creators" and their
> self-protecting policies.  A large number of these persons are paid
> editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to
> positions of administrators, Arbs, and WMF Trustees and blatantly
> misused their positions and lied about their background / Conflicts of
> Interest.
>
> I suggest its high time now for the WMF to directly take legal
> responsibility for the actions and policies of their (mostly)
> anonymous users and what is "hosted" on WMF servers.
>
> I suggest the WMF should immediately institute a regime of verified
> identities for its users and administrators across all its projects,
> and purge all rogue editors (along with their self serving
> so-called""community" policies) who are damaging the credibility of
> its projects, including through paid editing.
>
> David
>
> [1]
> http://www.businessinsider.in/Wikipedia-Could-Degenerate-If-It-Cant-Fix-One-Big-Problem-CHART/articleshow/26238463.cms
>
> On 2/29/16, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> > James, I think it is very nice to put measures against paid editing, but
> it
> > would be nicer to put measures to get editors more free time to edit
> > voluntarily...
> > There are not that many suggestions on how to do it, so it could be that
> it
> > cannot be done.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:14 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> >> With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying
> to
> >> address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind
> Elance
> >> and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have
> been
> >> a
> >> little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or
> >> foundation support to move forwards.
> >>
> >> With respect to using AI to detect paid editing, I spoke with Aaron
> >> Halfaker about the possibility in Nov 2015. What he needed was datasets
> of
> >> confirmed paid promotional editors. I have sent him some details. If
> >> others
> >> have details that would likely be useful. Things are in the very very
> >> early
> >> stages from what I understand.
> >>
> >> --
> >> James Heilman
> >> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >>
> >> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> >> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> > ___
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Ilario Valdelli]

Hi Leigh
In general there is always a transparent hierarchy and an untasparent one
self organized following the real leaderships.

Problems happen when the gap between both increases. In this case the real
decisions are made in front of a coffee machine and not in the right places.

The solution is a strong commitment from higher levels and a different
organization  (for instance by matrix and not simply functional).

Anyway it is the C level having the power to introduce a revolution like
this.

Kind regards
Il 28/Feb/2016 08:09 PM, "Leigh Thelmadatter" <osama...@hotmail.com> ha
scritto:

> I have to agree here. The WMF and its employees have forgotten that the
> mission is to support the work done on the various wikis, not make work for
> fireworks for themselves.
> Nothing we are dealing with here is new. It is just the eruption of some
> very long-standing problems with the WMF and the tone it sets for the rest
> of the movement. While some might be celebrating now, Lila was not the
> problem.  IMHO, the problem is a lot of hidden hierarchies (denied of
> course). Add to that, that the lack of transparency allows the growth of
> hidden agendas.
> Remember this blew when a community selected board member was tossed off
> the board unceremoniously. We find out through this that the community (or
> chapters) have no real voice on the board under the current set up.
>
>
> > From: dacu...@gmail.com
> > Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:30 +0100
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization
> >
> > I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
> > should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
> > suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
> and
> > process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
> > volunteership.
> >
> > Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
> any
> > need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
> > for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
> > mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
> > but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
> > educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
> > seem to forget that.
> >
> > A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
> > important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
> > that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as
> any
> > software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
> > working with my fellows on a common mission?
> >
> > The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
> > organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
> > gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
> > look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
> > volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
> > volunteers.
> > Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns
> of
> > participation?
> >
> > It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without
> resorting
> > to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
> > organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
> >
> > I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
> > possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
> > more information about the topic.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Emrany]

Hi David,

It would be even nicer if we have more editors editing voluntarily
instead of driving them away.

In the present scenario a University of Minnesota report by Aaron Halfaker says
"The declining number of editors is not due to the site's inability to
keep longtime editors contributing. Instead it can't keep new editors
from sticking around, due to an abrasive collective of editors and a
system that is crushingly bureaucratic." [1]

English Wikipedia's biggest problem today is its established
syndicates of 90% white male "content creators" and their
self-protecting policies.  A large number of these persons are paid
editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to
positions of administrators, Arbs, and WMF Trustees and blatantly
misused their positions and lied about their background / Conflicts of
Interest.

I suggest its high time now for the WMF to directly take legal
responsibility for the actions and policies of their (mostly)
anonymous users and what is "hosted" on WMF servers.

I suggest the WMF should immediately institute a regime of verified
identities for its users and administrators across all its projects,
and purge all rogue editors (along with their self serving
so-called""community" policies) who are damaging the credibility of
its projects, including through paid editing.

David

[1] 
http://www.businessinsider.in/Wikipedia-Could-Degenerate-If-It-Cant-Fix-One-Big-Problem-CHART/articleshow/26238463.cms

On 2/29/16, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> James, I think it is very nice to put measures against paid editing, but it
> would be nicer to put measures to get editors more free time to edit
> voluntarily...
> There are not that many suggestions on how to do it, so it could be that it
> cannot be done.
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:14 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
>> With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying to
>> address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind Elance
>> and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have been
>> a
>> little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or
>> foundation support to move forwards.
>>
>> With respect to using AI to detect paid editing, I spoke with Aaron
>> Halfaker about the possibility in Nov 2015. What he needed was datasets of
>> confirmed paid promotional editors. I have sent him some details. If
>> others
>> have details that would likely be useful. Things are in the very very
>> early
>> stages from what I understand.
>>
>> --
>> James Heilman
>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>>
>> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
>> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> 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
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

James, I think it is very nice to put measures against paid editing, but it
would be nicer to put measures to get editors more free time to edit
voluntarily...
There are not that many suggestions on how to do it, so it could be that it
cannot be done.

Cheers,
Micru

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:14 AM, James Heilman  wrote:

> With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying to
> address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind Elance
> and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have been a
> little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or
> foundation support to move forwards.
>
> With respect to using AI to detect paid editing, I spoke with Aaron
> Halfaker about the possibility in Nov 2015. What he needed was datasets of
> confirmed paid promotional editors. I have sent him some details. If others
> have details that would likely be useful. Things are in the very very early
> stages from what I understand.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[James Heilman]

With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying to
address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind Elance
and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have been a
little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or
foundation support to move forwards.

With respect to using AI to detect paid editing, I spoke with Aaron
Halfaker about the possibility in Nov 2015. What he needed was datasets of
confirmed paid promotional editors. I have sent him some details. If others
have details that would likely be useful. Things are in the very very early
stages from what I understand.

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Oliver Keyes]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:03 PM, David Emrany  wrote:
> Hi Brion
>
> When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you
> proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia
>
> Have we forgotten so soon the adverse media publicity about these
> stealth PR campaigns
>
> "Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it's no
> longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It's just
> another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of
> camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could
> promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products" [1]
>
> "payment of money to Wikipedia editors represented "the greatest
> threat the [Wikipedia] brand has seen to date" [2].
>
> Lila had taken the first technical / automation /AI steps to identify
> / weed out the paid editing claques which rule the roost. That she was
> eased out in this way shows that WMF is in terminal disrepair, and I
> resent Flo's attempt to deflect this thread away from the numerous
> paid editing controversies which have dogged the projects since the
> very beginning and systematically driven away all competent potential
> long-term contributors.

Sure, there is technical/automation/AI work that's being done. It's
not being done by Lila, it's being done by Aaron Halfaker, who can
provide his own opinion on whether he feels that work has been
adequately resourced (in other words whether it's something the people
who determine resourcing can get much credit for, beyond allowing it
to exist).

It has nothing to do with paid editing: at the moment it identifies
whether something is likely to be reverted, whether it is likely to
have been made in good faith, or whether it is likely to be vandalism.

Is there some other AI work being done that you're referring to?

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Brion Vibber]

On Feb 28, 2016 7:23 PM, "David Emrany"  wrote:
>
> Hi Brion
>
> When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you
> proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ?

Never heard of it, so can't comment.

-- brion

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia
>
> Have we forgotten so soon the adverse media publicity about these
> stealth PR campaigns
>
> "Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it's no
> longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It's just
> another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of
> camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could
> promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products" [1]
>
> "payment of money to Wikipedia editors represented "the greatest
> threat the [Wikipedia] brand has seen to date" [2].
>
> Lila had taken the first technical / automation /AI steps to identify
> / weed out the paid editing claques which rule the roost. That she was
> eased out in this way shows that WMF is in terminal disrepair, and I
> resent Flo's attempt to deflect this thread away from the numerous
> paid editing controversies which have dogged the projects since the
> very beginning and systematically driven away all competent potential
> long-term contributors.
>
> At the risk of being unpopular, I suggest the long-term health of our
> projects require that its not about empowering our volunteers but
> about regulating them.
>
> David
>
> [1]
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/20/roger_bamkin_gibraltor_s_repeated_appearance_on_did_you_know_provkes_existential_crisis_for_wikipedia_.html
>
> [2] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/20/wikimedia_uk_scandal/
>
> On 2/29/16, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> > Two distinct issues, I think:
> >
> > 1) about improving community representation in power structures, I
think we
> > have to think more about what representation we want and what structures
> > would accomplish it. I have no answers but think we should consider
looking
> > beyond WMF alone:
> >
> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082703.html
> >
> > 2) about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively: I'll have
> > mostly tech-focused thoughts on that because that's where my expertise
is,
> > so you need to hear from other people who interact with a wider set of
> > volunteers than patch contributors and the people who manage to figure
out
> > our feedback systems. :) whether that should be funded by / staffed
within
> > WMF or our other movement orgs or both is an open question.
> >
> > -- brion
> > On Feb 28, 2016 11:51 AM, "David Cuenca Tudela" 
wrote:
> >
> >> Brion,
> >> so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the
WMF
> >> as
> >> a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about
> >> other
> >> roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant
making.
> >> So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there should be
> >> more
> >> power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater
> >> focus in empowering volunteers?
> >> How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the
direction of
> >> the movement? And how to offer volunteers the opportunity to become
more
> >> dedicated without paying them directly?
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Micru
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Emrany]

Hi Brion

When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you
proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia

Have we forgotten so soon the adverse media publicity about these
stealth PR campaigns

"Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it's no
longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It's just
another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of
camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could
promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products" [1]

"payment of money to Wikipedia editors represented "the greatest
threat the [Wikipedia] brand has seen to date" [2].

Lila had taken the first technical / automation /AI steps to identify
/ weed out the paid editing claques which rule the roost. That she was
eased out in this way shows that WMF is in terminal disrepair, and I
resent Flo's attempt to deflect this thread away from the numerous
paid editing controversies which have dogged the projects since the
very beginning and systematically driven away all competent potential
long-term contributors.

At the risk of being unpopular, I suggest the long-term health of our
projects require that its not about empowering our volunteers but
about regulating them.

David

[1]  
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/20/roger_bamkin_gibraltor_s_repeated_appearance_on_did_you_know_provkes_existential_crisis_for_wikipedia_.html

[2] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/20/wikimedia_uk_scandal/

On 2/29/16, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> Two distinct issues, I think:
>
> 1) about improving community representation in power structures, I think we
> have to think more about what representation we want and what structures
> would accomplish it. I have no answers but think we should consider looking
> beyond WMF alone:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082703.html
>
> 2) about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively: I'll have
> mostly tech-focused thoughts on that because that's where my expertise is,
> so you need to hear from other people who interact with a wider set of
> volunteers than patch contributors and the people who manage to figure out
> our feedback systems. :) whether that should be funded by / staffed within
> WMF or our other movement orgs or both is an open question.
>
> -- brion
> On Feb 28, 2016 11:51 AM, "David Cuenca Tudela"  wrote:
>
>> Brion,
>> so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the WMF
>> as
>> a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about
>> other
>> roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant making.
>> So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there should be
>> more
>> power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater
>> focus in empowering volunteers?
>> How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the direction of
>> the movement? And how to offer volunteers the opportunity to become more
>> dedicated without paying them directly?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Micru

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Richard Ames]

See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Management#References

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> Two distinct issues, I think:

>
> 2) about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively:


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Brion Vibber]

Two distinct issues, I think:

1) about improving community representation in power structures, I think we
have to think more about what representation we want and what structures
would accomplish it. I have no answers but think we should consider looking
beyond WMF alone:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082703.html

2) about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively: I'll have
mostly tech-focused thoughts on that because that's where my expertise is,
so you need to hear from other people who interact with a wider set of
volunteers than patch contributors and the people who manage to figure out
our feedback systems. :) whether that should be funded by / staffed within
WMF or our other movement orgs or both is an open question.

-- brion
On Feb 28, 2016 11:51 AM, "David Cuenca Tudela"  wrote:

> Brion,
> so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the WMF as
> a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about other
> roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant making.
> So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there should be more
> power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater
> focus in empowering volunteers?
> How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the direction of
> the movement? And how to offer volunteers the opportunity to become more
> dedicated without paying them directly?
>
> Cheers
> Micru
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Brion Vibber 
> wrote:
>
> > David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :)
> >
> > -- brion
> >
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the
> WMF
> > > should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed
> to
> > > suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
> > and
> > > process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force
> is
> > > volunteership.
> > >
> > > Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
> > any
> > > need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of
> working
> > > for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
> > > mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to
> happen,
> > > but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
> > > educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens
> we
> > > seem to forget that.
> > >
> > > A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
> > > important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and
> joy
> > > that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as
> > any
> > > software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
> > > working with my fellows on a common mission?
> > >
> > > The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
> > > organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
> > > gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then
> I
> > > look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
> > > volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
> > > volunteers.
> > > Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old
> patterns
> > of
> > > participation?
> > >
> > > It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without
> > resorting
> > > to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
> > > organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is
> possible.
> > >
> > > I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it
> is
> > > possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
> > > more information about the topic.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Micru
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Brion,
so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the WMF as
a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about other
roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant making.
So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there should be more
power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater
focus in empowering volunteers?
How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the direction of
the movement? And how to offer volunteers the opportunity to become more
dedicated without paying them directly?

Cheers
Micru

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :)
>
> -- brion
>
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> > I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
> > should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
> > suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
> and
> > process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
> > volunteership.
> >
> > Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
> any
> > need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
> > for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
> > mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
> > but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
> > educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
> > seem to forget that.
> >
> > A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
> > important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
> > that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as
> any
> > software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
> > working with my fellows on a common mission?
> >
> > The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
> > organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
> > gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
> > look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
> > volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
> > volunteers.
> > Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns
> of
> > participation?
> >
> > It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without
> resorting
> > to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
> > organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
> >
> > I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
> > possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
> > more information about the topic.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Brion Vibber]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :)


To clarify, we are strongly agreed that constructive support of people to
accomplish movement goals is why WMF exists.

My message was focused on internal management/staff relations, adding
context to Lila's post.

Your message is focused on external company/volunteer relations -- just as
important and affecting more people -- and with very similar concerns about
giving needed support to help people succeed.

Ok now I'm way over my post quota, so going back to lurking.

-- brion


> -- brion
>
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela  > wrote:
>
>> I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
>> should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
>> suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
>> and
>> process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
>> volunteership.
>>
>> Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
>> any
>> need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
>> for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
>> mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
>> but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
>> educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
>> seem to forget that.
>>
>> A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
>> important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
>> that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as any
>> software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
>> working with my fellows on a common mission?
>>
>> The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
>> organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
>> gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
>> look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
>> volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
>> volunteers.
>> Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns
>> of
>> participation?
>>
>> It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without resorting
>> to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
>> organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
>>
>> I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
>> possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
>> more information about the topic.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Micru
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Brion Vibber]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Leigh Thelmadatter <osama...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> I have to agree here.


Yes.


>
> The WMF and its employees have forgotten that the mission is to support
> the work done on the various wikis, not make work for fireworks for
> themselves.


No.


> Nothing we are dealing with here is new. It is just the eruption of some
> very long-standing problems with the WMF and the tone it sets for the rest
> of the movement.


Yes.


> While some might be celebrating now,


No, except as sense of relief in an immediate part of problem bent
addressed.


> Lila was not the problem.  IMHO, the problem is a lot of hidden
> hierarchies (denied of course). Add to that, that the lack of transparency
> allows the growth of hidden agendas.

Remember this blew when a community selected board member was tossed off
> the board unceremoniously. We find out through this that the community (or
> chapters) have no real voice on the board under the current set up.


Yes.

-- brion


>
>
> > From: dacu...@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:30 +0100
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization
> >
> > I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
> > should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
> > suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
> and
> > process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
> > volunteership.
> >
> > Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
> any
> > need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
> > for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
> > mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
> > but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
> > educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
> > seem to forget that.
> >
> > A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
> > important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
> > that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as
> any
> > software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
> > working with my fellows on a common mission?
> >
> > The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
> > organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
> > gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
> > look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
> > volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
> > volunteers.
> > Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns
> of
> > participation?
> >
> > It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without
> resorting
> > to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
> > organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
> >
> > I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
> > possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
> > more information about the topic.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Brion Vibber]

David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :)

-- brion

On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
> should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
> suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather and
> process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
> volunteership.
>
> Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be any
> need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
> for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
> mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
> but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
> educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
> seem to forget that.
>
> A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
> important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
> that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as any
> software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
> working with my fellows on a common mission?
>
> The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
> organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
> gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
> look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
> volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
> volunteers.
> Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns of
> participation?
>
> It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without resorting
> to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
> organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
>
> I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
> possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
> more information about the topic.
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

I have to agree here. The WMF and its employees have forgotten that the mission 
is to support the work done on the various wikis, not make work for fireworks 
for themselves.
Nothing we are dealing with here is new. It is just the eruption of some very 
long-standing problems with the WMF and the tone it sets for the rest of the 
movement. While some might be celebrating now, Lila was not the problem.  IMHO, 
the problem is a lot of hidden hierarchies (denied of course). Add to that, 
that the lack of transparency allows the growth of hidden agendas.
Remember this blew when a community selected board member was tossed off the 
board unceremoniously. We find out through this that the community (or 
chapters) have no real voice on the board under the current set up. 


> From: dacu...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:30 +0100
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization
> 
> I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
> should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
> suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather and
> process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
> volunteership.
> 
> Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be any
> need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
> for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
> mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
> but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
> educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
> seem to forget that.
> 
> A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
> important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
> that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as any
> software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
> working with my fellows on a common mission?
> 
> The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
> organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
> gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
> look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
> volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
> volunteers.
> Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns of
> participation?
> 
> It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without resorting
> to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
> organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
> 
> I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
> possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
> more information about the topic.
> 
> Cheers,
> Micru
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather and
process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
volunteership.

Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be any
need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
seem to forget that.

A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as any
software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
working with my fellows on a common mission?

The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
volunteers.
Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns of
participation?

It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without resorting
to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.

I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
more information about the topic.

Cheers,
Micru
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,