Hi David,

I wholeheartedly support your words. The Wikimedia movement relies on the
energy and enthusiasm of the Wikipedians or the volunteers from around the
world. Technology is a tool in this case, but not the driving agent. The
other tools which you mentioned are indeed important in the movement.

Regarding the practices that are running now, it's actually like, not
everything's wrong or negative. Of course there is way to explore new ideas
or practices, and that would definitely come out of spontaneous discussion
among volunteers. The movement is ever changing, so new practices and ideas
should come along the way and we must welcome such interactions or
discussions. The decision to accept or disregard of new ideas would also
rely upon the unanimous opinion. In some cases, some idea might work in a
specific part of the world, and not everywhere.


Thanks,
Tanweer

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Anders Wennersten <m...@anderswennersten.se>
wrote:

>
>
> Den 2016-03-01 kl. 11:01, skrev David Emrany:
>
>> The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes
>> rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies
>> of the movement are being created daily.
>>
>
> We all live in different realities, so please be careful to indicate that
> your reality is everyones reality
>
> In Sweden we have had the most profound increase in trust in Wikipedia the
> last six month, not least in conjunction to the 15 year anniversary  There
> have been several articled in our main media reporting both with good
> insight and giving credibility to Wikipedia. We have seen a continuous
> strong support from the Glam sector and also a significant change from
> School authorities, which now are staring to look mostly how to make best
> use of Wikipedia, and not as before only indicating the need to be
> observant of sources being used
>
> The affiliate here has just received the biggest grant yet on more then
> 300KUSD to put the result of wikipedia loves word heritage onto WIkidata.
> And  also our community is working better then ever and seeing regularly
> new editor (but we still have a problem of too few new ones)
>
> So here there is no scandal being known and what is happening around SF is
> not reported or known her in our media
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela <dacu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO
>>> "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of
>>> administrators".
>>> Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and
>>> suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they
>>> find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times
>>> dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of
>>> responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.
>>>
>>> However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors"
>>> and I
>>> consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site.
>>> It
>>> is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests
>>> it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would
>>> take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >>
>>> https://xkcd.com/1217/
>>>
>>> I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that
>>> cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers
>>> themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with
>>> the
>>> professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust
>>> to
>>> take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what
>>> it
>>> constitutes.
>>>
>>> When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like
>>> WOOF,
>>> or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could
>>> work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the
>>> movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it
>>> goes.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Micru
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



-- 
Regards,
Tanweer
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to