I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying them
cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay,
food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs work, like
workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
Would it be an acceptable compromise?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman <dgge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt the Foundation
> altogether. It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency. We're
> supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting itself
> be used as a medium for advertising. It at least hopes to achieve this by
> while not being evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
> Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people
> freely give us more than enough for our needs, and can therefore hope to
> achieve the positive good of providing objective information on
> encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not information that
> other organizations want people to read. We have no need to compromise.
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <pute...@mccme.ru>
> > wrote:
> > - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
> > > - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates with
> > > WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were
> > paid
> > > arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give up,
> > and I
> > > was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also had
> > very
> > > unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose only
> > goal
> > > was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality,
> > > efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if somebody
> > > defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the quality
> > > loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who is
> > > (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and have to
> > do
> > > the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more persistent.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
> > Wikipedia.
> > Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded as
> > okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about the
> > institution that employs them.
> > But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems
> > of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor
> > more persistent).
> > Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that want
> > articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the
> > problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my
> > was that it would be better than the current situation.
> > Sarah
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> David Goodman
> DGG at the enWP
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org