On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:20 PM, pajz <pajzm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, we all know about the problems of giving monetary compensation to
> editors. Just thinking aloud here, but I guess if you want to reward
> editors in some way, but don't want to pay them directly, there's some
> middle ground: Don't pay them, but let them donate their share of the cake.
> At the beginning of the year, the WMF would set a budget, add some buffer,
> and all that is received on top of that goes to a charity pool which
> "belongs" to the editors. However, they can't claim any of the money for
> themselves, but instead can choose how much they'd like to give to charity
> A, charity B, etc. So, for instance, I'm a fan of the work of UNICEF and a
> lesser-known charity called Evidence Action. So "my" compensation for my
> Wikipedia work would be an amount X that I prorate between these two
> organizations. Other editors would also take part in this scheme.

And here I thought you were going to suggest giving each editor a pool
of $$ to assign to their favorite skunkworks projects.

If we divide the current WMF budget ($58M) by the current number of
monthly active editors (71K), then take 60% off the top for keeping
the lights on, infrastructure, etc. -- this is a fairly typical
overhead percentage for grants at universities -- we're still left
with $325/editor.

Personally, I'd vote my funds for edit-a-thons in a box :)

Phoebe, causing trouble

p.s. this is a thought experiment. I think the logistics would be
unwieldy. But not so unwieldy that the the highly-praised community
tech punchlist couldn't be implemented in many other areas too.

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

Reply via email to