gt; To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?
> I fully support Micrus summary and comments, I see it them very up to
> the point I raised in my first input in this thread.
> And while I see this as a general problem fo
] On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?
I fully support Micrus summary and comments, I see it them very up to
the point I raised in my first input in this thread
I thank my colleagues for this valuable discussion.
Here are a few more thoughts from my end:
* While my efforts for the next few months will focus on new contributors,
the issues with administrative backlogs, COI patrolling and investigations,
and a myriad of other issues which "mid-career" or
I fully support Micrus summary and comments, I see it them very up to
the point I raised in my first input in this thread.
And while I see this as a general problem for all versions/projects, I
can see that a start on enwp would make sense. It has the biggest number
of edits but also being
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop?
First of all I must say that what I might say as an answer to those
questions reflects my understanding of this topic now, which is different
than when the conversation
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 4:31 AM, Pine W wrote:
> This sounds like another good question for Nicole.
Indeed, but she might be busy or in vacation. If she doesn't get involved
into this conversation in the next days I will open a new thread about it.
> * There are a number of people who
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:36 AM, David Cuenca Tudela
> It is nice of you that you thought about including these topics in the WMF
> strategy process, which I assume it is an ongoing process and not a one-off
> event. However as the 2017 cycle ended, I am unable to find
Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop? Is it only
for admins and if so why and, is it only for English Wikipedia and if so
On 28 May 2018 at 15:48, David Cuenca Tudela wrote:
> Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards
It is nice of you that you thought about including these topics in the WMF
strategy process, which I assume it is an ongoing process and not a one-off
event. However as the 2017 cycle ended, I am unable to find the way to
incorporate new ideas into the process. I would have expected to find
Based on the limited information that I have, it seems to me that there are
already numerous contribtors who are paid to engage in promotional activity on
Wikipedia, whether declared or undeclared, and the community does not have
adequate human resources to patrol and investigate all of these.
Hey Yaroslav, thanks for sharing your view. I find very interesting what
you mention, and if you have experienced yourself it must be a real effect
on people. Five years ago, when I was awarded an IEG grant, I didn't feel
the same effect on me. In fact it was quite the opposite, I felt under
I am actually fully with Gnangarra here. I am also an unpaid volunteer who
invested a lot of hours of my free time into various Wikimedia projects
(and mostly getting a lot of shit in reward, but this is not the point
now). I did have an experience of disagreements with people who were either
Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards the community
and that is laudable. As you, over the years I have also spent countless
hours in this community, and I do not regret it either, I feel it has been
and it still is a good investment of my time, and my dedication. You, as
I think thats a little disingenuous to say that we dont take care of our
volunteers and that its a negative message to not give some financial
reward to admins.
We came here by choice, whether we are here for a long time or a short time we
chose to add to the sum of all knowledge for myriad of
> My view is that the Foundation was suddenly (but not without warning)
> made legally responsible for its own content after Trump made hosting
> providers responsible for facilitating online prostitution
> advertising, at pretty much the same time the GDPR went in to effect.
I do not know enough
> I am open to more input, and more exchange of views.
My view is that the Foundation was suddenly (but not without warning)
made legally responsible for its own content after Trump made hosting
providers responsible for facilitating online prostitution
advertising, at pretty much the same time
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
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
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
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
On 26 May 2018 at 17:52, 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.
On Sat, 26 May 2018, 10:35 Anders
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
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
>> Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and
>> hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential
>> characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia?
> There is a difference, and that is the degree of professionalization. The
> role of admin is not a
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:16 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and
> hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential
> characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia?
There is a difference, and
>... about the classical employer-employee relationship, I am totally
> against it. The reason is that there is so much effort wasted tracking
> and keeping people accountable
Priyanka Mandikal implemented a way to keep paid editors accountable
using reputation tracking two years ago:
You compare two things that are not related and where there is a conflict
of interest. As it is, we are severely lacking in information in many of
our Wikipedias. Given that not even percent of the humans in Wikidata is
from Africa, the #AfricaGap is bigger than the #GenderGap (no percent vs
Thank you for this provocation, I share your concern. As a reader, it's
disappointing to find material that looks like a press release, and
intimidating to flag or edit without doing research into the editing
history and editors involved. A quick, "back of the envelope" calculation
I hear your worries. Indeed it seems that resisting the push is taking more
effort than what the community can take under the current circumstances, or
at least it doesn't look sustainable (the RfA chart shown in the last
Signpost  is really clear on that regard).
My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize
the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing
is slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in
In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of
Mail list logo