Thanks for the thoughtful response; you've raised some excellent points that strongly warrant further discussion.
Some more recent initiatives like the Community Tech team have been specifically meant to help "power users" get stuff done; I hope that's working out and helping, and that the focus on providing tools that our contributors want and need continues. The topic of unpaid labor -- and exploiting addictive behaviors -- is a general one with free and open source software specifically, as well as user generated content generally, and I agree it deserves a lot more thought. -- brion On Feb 23, 2016 3:41 PM, "SarahSV" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Brion Vibber <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > I think first we have to ask: why did many people feel attacked or in > > unwanted adversarial positions before (both among volunteers, and among > > staff)? What sort of interactions and behavior were seen as problematic, > > and what led up to them? > > > > The crux of the problem is that we all see ourselves as bosses. > The paid workers don't want to be told what to do by the unpaid, and vice > versa. > > There were clashes around the introduction of software, but these were only > flashpoints. There was (and remains) a simmering resentment of the paid > among the unpaid, for obvious reasons. And the paid staff seemed to regard > experienced editors as "power users" who need to be chased off, missing the > point that (a) "power users" have invaluable experience and a very unusual > skill set that should be used not discarded, and (b) that the new users the > Foundation wants to cultivate will become "power users" too one day if > they're cultivated well – unless the idea is to appeal only to occasional > users who want to fix typos, but you won't get an encyclopaedia that way. > > You mentioned the "exploitation of employees and users for their labor > " in your email, and I'm glad you did, because that's almost never > discussed. It was in part why there was such a strong reaction to the > misunderstanding about the Knowledge Engine. We had visions of the > Foundation trying to create yet another unpaid workforce to "curate" search > results. > > I don't want this email to be essay-length, but let me raise an issue > that's closely related to exploitation, namely addiction. A lot of the > unpaid workers are addicted to what they do, and I've seen staffers discuss > how to keep them that way (e.g. by creating feedback loops of responses to > keep people going). Should the Foundation be paying for that kind of work > and thinking in those ways? I would say not. > > So the question of how to support volunteers involves: > > 1. Recognizing that we are an unpaid workforce. > > 2. Recognizing that there are questions about exploitation and addiction > that should be discussed, and that these are serious ethical and perhaps > even public-health issues. > > 3. Developing an attitude of social responsibility toward us within the > Foundation, rather than seeing us as a nuisance and an obstacle. > > 4. Rethinking Sue's decision that the Foundation would never pay for > content. I can think of several ways in which the Foundation could either > pay or facilitate payment. > > I'll leave it there, because this is long, and perhaps reply to your other > points in another email. Just one final thought. When I lived in London > years ago, a new newspaper started for homeless people, The Big Issue. It > is sold by the homeless on the streets, with the idea of giving them a way > to earn an income. The homeless and other volunteers also used to help > write it. The idea was that, as it became more successful, everyone would > be paid, because the concept of it was to lift everyone up. > > I would love to see the Wikimedia Foundation embrace that philosophy, > namely that part of its job is to nurture its workforce (paid and unpaid), > offer them opportunity where it can, lift them up, educate them, show them > how to educate others, and respect them, so that everyone who gets involved > seriously with Wikipedia finds their lives improved because of that > involvement. > > Sarah > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
