Enwp may also be the most resistant project to having people paid to do admin work. Has the concept ever been discussed on enwp? If so, when and where, and what was the consensus if any? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anders Wennersten Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 1:36 PM To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing? I fully support Micrus summary and comments, I see it them very up to the point I raised in my first input in this thread. And while I see this as a general problem for all versions/projects, I can see that a start on enwp would make sense. It has the biggest number of edits but also being the one where the "gains" to enter skewed info is very much the highest, making the pressure on admins when neutralizing being the toughest. For the model now being discussed I see it as comparable to "Wikipedian in Residence", perhaps like "Admins (patrollers) financially supported by a Community". Anders Den 2018-06-01 kl. 10:51, skrev David Cuenca Tudela: > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop? > First of all I must say that what I might say as an answer to those > questions reflects my understanding of this topic now, which is different > than when the conversation started, and that it will be different when more > questions like these arise, or when more input is given, or when what I say > is being challenged. > > As I see it now, specially after the input by Pine, the system should not > rely on donations from the WMF only. Volunteers should have their own > individual way to develop a relationship with their donors in order to feel > free. The WMF might be part of this, either directly supporting individual > volunteers, or by supporting an affiliate that would administer funds on > behalf of the WMF and other major donors. > > You ask "where does it stop?" and my interpretation is that the capacity > both to enable volunteers to accept donations, and to donors to support > them should be built organically over time. It is unrealistic to think that > we can suddenly open the system for everyone, it has to be built > progressively. Remember also that, from the input by Yaroslav, it is > important that volunteers are enabled to accept donations with the > condition that they develop personal faculties, like the ability to listen, > humbleness, and general understanding of the situation of the community and > their own. This takes time, and requires a kind of social structure that > needs to be built from scratch to facilitate the goal. > > Regarding if it is only for admins or not, well, my understanding at the > moment is that there are tasks that require considerable personal energy > and dedication that is in short supply. There are also tasks that fulfill a > structural function in the community, and that are not valued as such. I > feel that for the first stage of this initiative volunteers should > self-assess how their work affects other members of the "working > community", that is the community of editors who perform tasks in the > projects. Be it in direct tasks like maintenance, or social tasks like > mediation. I consider that in general admins satisfy these criteria, but of > course, as always, there are many grey zones that should be considered > carefully on a case by case basis. If this initiative would progress and > would be successful, I imagine that volunteers that work for the broader > reading/data consuming community should also be considered eventually. > However, as said, I would prefer to start small to build understanding, > capacity, and empowerment where it has the biggest impact first, and expand > as conditions allow. > >> is it only for English Wikipedia and if so why? > In my opinion, no. I consider myself a global volunteer of the Wikimedia > movement and as such I care for all volunteers in every project. I consider > that every Wikimedian deserves my attention, and my work to enable them to > be successful in whatever project they are working on (one of the reasons > why these days I am more involved in Wikidata). The reality is, however, > that en-wiki attracts the most attention from readers/donors because it has > established itself as a common ground for the whole planet. We could argue > if this is healthy or not, but it is the reality right now and we should > live with it while we find more inclusive approaches. Once said that, I do > consider that en-wiki should be given the attention that it deserves, while > considering smaller projects that also need this kind of approach. > > Regards, > Micru > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
