A +1 to both Richard and Pete; Making editathons harder to put on is NOT a valuable use of anyone's time.
On Wednesday, 18 March 2015, Richard Symonds < richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: > I worry that running an auction and a raffle for each - or even some - > editathons would be a lot of work, even if you just focus on the admin work > (I'm not sure what the laws around fundraising auctions and lotteries are > but that could be costly too). The FDC and the community in general are > very much against increasing 'back office costs' and this would increase > them by quite a bit for each editathon. > > The incentivising volunteers with money issue would also be very very > difficult, even if the community was ok with it. You'd be paying > volunteers, which in this country would make them staff, which means they'd > need a minimum wage, taxes, and even a pension. > > Do we need to incentivise volunteers with cash at all? I'm not sure we > do... there's no shortage of volunteers to run editathons in the UK at > least! > On 19 Mar 2015 00:54, "James Salsman" <jsals...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > I really like editathons because of the ease with which they can be > > designed to address systemic bias, but I'm not sure having them supported > > by the Foundation is optimal from the perspective of time and money both. > > > > Therefore, I propose that someone try some editathons where half the > > tickets are auctioned, the other half are raffled, and the Foundation > pays > > to support them if and only if the auction fails to pay all of the > expenses > > in advance, and then only the difference. This will allow them to become > > more exclusive, but not completely exclusive, and it will incentivize the > > organizing wikipedians by allowing them to pay themselves some contingent > > portion of the proceeds to be negotiated with the Foundation, and which > > could, for example, include an open-ended proportion of auction proceeds. > > > > Please share your thoughts on this proposal. I am also making diagrams > for > > nine of the twelve steps listed on > > http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review > > and its talk page, where I will soon be proposing a different alternate > > funding model to avoid relying on Google Summer of Code. I would also be > > most interested in comments on that. Thank you! > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > 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 > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > ?subject=unsubscribe> -- Sent from my mobile computing device of Lovecraftian complexity and horror. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
