[Wikimedia-l] Re: Paid editing in Bulgarian Wikipedia?
T > On Dec 10, 2021, at 11:53 AM, James Heilman wrote: > > > I personally am more concerned about paid conflict of interest editing and > much less concerned about paid non conflict of interest work. This appears on > superficial overview to be the latter. Will be interested to see how this > experiment turns out. > > James > >> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 9:47 AM Mrb Rafi wrote: >> Hello all! >> >> I became confused watching this [1] job post on Upwork with the title >> "Create 20 pages in the Bulgarian Wikipedia". The client offered 30 USD for >> this task. >> The job post says: >> >>> This is a small experimental project. The goal is to check if people on >>> Upwork.com can help grow the Bulgarian Wikipedia in a quality way. I also >>> wish to *not* cannibalize edits that would have happened anyway. >>> >>> The created content will be in the public domain. It's a gift to all >>> Bulgarians. We follow all the values, guidelines and rules valid on the >>> Bulgarian WIkipedia: https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Уикипедия:Поведение . >>> This includes following the specific wiki syntax and the usual expectations >>> of all pages, especially good sources and categorization of the page. Some >>> experience editing Wikipedia is desired, but not required. Since these are >>> supposed to be net new edits, I will prefer people who have fewer than 100 >>> Wikipedia edits so far. >>> >>> Due to this social benefit, the proposed price is far below market price. >>> As Bulgarians say, the payment is symbolic. >>> >>> For this experiment, I've selected 20 articles that exist in the English >>> Wikipedia, but don't yet exist in the Bulgarian Wikipedia. That gives you >>> the option to use Wikipedia's translation tool, which may make your work >>> much faster and more pleasant: Please note that the translation tool has >>> some specifics that take time to get used to, e.g., adding references, >>> representing other alphabets -- I can help with such issues. >>> >>> The list of proposed articles is here: >>> https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Потребител:Cryout/Чрез_ЪпУърк >>> I hope you will enjoy this variety of content. Still, the list is >>> negotiable and we can swap articles in and out per your preference. >> >> Is it going in the right way? I'm a Lil' bit confused. >> Besides this, you'll get tons of paid editing job posts on Upwork, >> freelancer and other freelance networks. At first, I used to report these >> posts but there are so many of them that it's not possible for me to find >> all of them and report them. >> >> [1] https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01371a50692d0540d0 >> >> Best regards, >> Rafi >> >> ___ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QOPUIPET6TQAQRV5YDC32L7SBVG3A7MT/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PNVZ323GVJ3JB3AZJYE3G6YVP6EK5DTN/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DSTE7US3OYUFSRNJIKIQWJO5SJSR2LJE/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money
There is no point raising more money than we can usefully spend. There was
presented in this thread a very appropriate list of expensive things we could
usefully do ,but the reason we don’t do them isn’t lack of money —because we
have so much of what we raise unspent. We either don’t have the ability to
organise to do the work or can’t find the people or would rather accumulate
money than use it.
> On Sep 28, 2021, at 6:39 AM, Vi to wrote:
>
>
> UCOC must surely be ruled out of this list. The reasons behind its creations
> are indisputable.
>
> Anyway donations are collected because of volunteers' work, but should be
> mainly bound to readers' (donors') will.
>
> Vito
>
>> Il giorno mar 28 set 2021 alle ore 10:19 Todd Allen
>> ha scritto:
>> It's not only that.
>>
>> When the WMF uses its funds to actively act against its volunteer community
>> (ACTRIAL, MEDIAVIEWER, FRAMBAN, and more lately UCOC), that raises issues
>> beyond disgust. The projects we spent our time building are now actively
>> being used to do things we don't want to do. It is not just that WMF is
>> using its money on frivolous or useless projects (though that would be a
>> problem), it is that WMF is using its funds from what we built to actively
>> punch us in the face and act against us.
>>
>> If WMF were using its funds to take trips out to Barbados for no reason,
>> well--we'd probably still be irritated about that. But use our funds to
>> actively stomp on our volunteer community, and ignore what they say?
>>
>> Well that's not just disgust. That's anger, and that's what you're seeing.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Todd Allen
>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 2:51 PM Guillaume Paumier
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> (Sending this as a personal opinion, albeit one informed by my work on
>>> revenue strategy in the past few years.)
>>>
>>> Discussions about fundraising in the Wikimedia movement often involve the
>>> same arguments over time. My theory, after observing and participating in
>>> those discussions for 15 years, is the following.
>>>
>>> Objections to Wikimedia fundraising (and, more broadly, revenue generation)
>>> tend to stem from three main sources:
>>> * the moral superiority of financial disinterest
>>> * outlandish budgets and fundraising goals
>>> * improper means used to raise money.
>>>
>>> The first one is relatively simple. A significant number of us find any
>>> relationship between money and free knowledge viscerally disgusting. We've
>>> been editing as volunteers for years, devoting our free time to the
>>> advancement of humankind through knowledge. We have done so through
>>> countless acts of selflessness. Our financial disinterest is inextricably
>>> woven into our identity as Wikimedians. The Foundation should only raise
>>> the minimum funds required to "keep the lights on." Anything more is an
>>> attempt to profit from our free labor, and that's revolting.
>>>
>>> This is not unlike discussions of business models in the libre software
>>> community; we can also see those arguments surface in discussions around
>>> paid editing. I will leave the moral argument aside, because little can be
>>> done to change individual identities and moral judgments of money. But
>>> let's name them explicitly, in hopes that we can separate them from more
>>> fact-based arguments, if we are willing and able.
>>>
>>> The second point of contention is how much we raise. To those of us who
>>> remember the early years ("May we ask y'all to chip in a few dollars so we
>>> can buy our second server?!"), raising $150+ million a year these days
>>> seems extravagant, and probably always will. The much smaller budgets from
>>> our past act as cognitive anchors, [1] and in comparison recent budgets
>>> appear greedily outsized. Instead of being outraged by the growth of the
>>> budget, we should instead ask ourselves how much money we really need.
>>>
>>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
>>>
>>> And the fact is that, as a movement, we need as much money as we can get to
>>> advance our mission. Our vision is so ambitious and expansive that it is
>>> also bound to be inevitably expensive. This is something that the Board
>>> understood: shortly after endorsing the Strategic Direction in 2017, they
>>> directed the Foundation to prepare to raise more funds than usual, to be
>>> able to move towards our collective vision for 2030. [2] My fellow members
>>> of the working group on Revenue Streams for movement strategy also
>>> understood the scope of the movement's ambitions: the first guiding
>>> question for our work was how to "maximize revenue for the movement". [3]
>>>
>>> [2]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/November_2017_-_Statement_endorsing_future_resourcing_and_direction_of_the_organization
>>> [3]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Revenue_S
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart
Certainly the projects have a role beyond content—in particular, they, not the foundation, are what the public sees. They are what it is needed to publicise (I don’t like to use the term “marketing “ — that’s the way the foundation speaks) and this is a key role of the chapters. The obvious role of the foundation, besides the basic central services, is to deal with its natural counterparts—formal organisations such as governments and copyright agencies. I recognise the need for coordination and the possible need to intervene to maintain minimum standards. But these are historically dangerous roles, for “protection “ against potential forces that might oppose our values has an ominous potential also.— DGG Obviously I speak only for myself—assume the appropriate qualifications before every phrase > On Jul 10, 2021, at 11:33 AM, Ciell Wikipedia > wrote: > > > Bill/Will mentioned this might be a new organisational chart of the Wikimedia > Foundation. Of course, visuals differ depending on what you are trying to > visualize. > > This one for instance would be more along the lines of what you, Dgg, are > mentioning: how the different parties are involved in our projects. This one > would be more about how content on the projects is governed, and the > different layers in responsibilities we have. This one is more about how > content is added to projects (example in this case: Wikimedia Commons): this > is a visualisation on the parties that re-use our content outside of the > projects. > > It would probably be impractical (or impossible even?) to put everything in > one visual without the purpose of the illustration becoming too broad, and > the chart or visual therefore surpassing its purpose (visual support for a > concept). > > Vriendelijke groet, > Ciell > > > Op vr 9 jul. 2021 om 23:16 schreef Dggenwp : >> The projects are the route by which content is added to Wikipedia. The >> purpose of Wikipedia is not to have an organisation—the purpose is to have >> and distribute free content. Everything else is superstructure—everything >> except the individual volunteers and the projects. This superstructure can >> be important, but not essential — the volunteers are capable of organising >> themselves and maintaining the projects. The foundation by itself is capable >> of almost nothing, as it doesn’t add content. The chapters are of value, >> primarily in recruiting contributors—without that, they’d just be social >> clubs. >> >> The volunteers and the projects to which they add content are what matters. >> The three key functions of the organisation are maintaining MediaWiki (but >> that’s a volunteer effort also) in raising the small amount of essential >> funding, and the critically important political work of supporting freedom >> of the internet and of speech more generally. But our influence for this is >> because people in the world use the content the volunteers add to the >> projects. The structure must be organised around them. We are here to build >> an encyclopaedia. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Jul 7, 2021, at 12:59 AM, Željko Blaće wrote: >>>> >>> On Tuesday, July 6, 2021, Ciell Wikipedia >>> wrote: >>>> Thank you Bill, I always find organisation charts very much enlightening, >>>> and have been missing something like it for the WMF for some time now. >>> >>> I feel the same. We need much much more of diagramatic content and higher >>> level of organizational understanding for all Wikimedia contributors. >>> >>> >>>> I think all the departments of the WMF-side are equal, right? For >>>> instance, legal has no higher 'status' then fundraising or research: >>>> employees are equals, just with a different function in the >>>> organisation.Therefore all the different departments should be presented >>>> in a horizontal line, not a vertical one, like in this one for example. >>> >>> Kind of good point, but maybe scale (same size) is enough to represent >>> equals, rather than direction/orientation? Not an expert. >>> >>> BTW. >>> .svg file export would be best >>> for the posibility of translation >>> within Wikimedia Commons ;-) >>> >>> >>> Best, Z. >>> >>>> Vriendelijke groet, >>>> Ciell >>>> >>>> >>>> Op di 6 jul. 2021 om 01:03 schreef Bill Takatoshi >>>> : >>>>> Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org cha
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart
The projects are the route by which content is added to Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to have an organisation—the purpose is to have and distribute free content. Everything else is superstructure—everything except the individual volunteers and the projects. This superstructure can be important, but not essential — the volunteers are capable of organising themselves and maintaining the projects. The foundation by itself is capable of almost nothing, as it doesn’t add content. The chapters are of value, primarily in recruiting contributors—without that, they’d just be social clubs. The volunteers and the projects to which they add content are what matters. The three key functions of the organisation are maintaining MediaWiki (but that’s a volunteer effort also) in raising the small amount of essential funding, and the critically important political work of supporting freedom of the internet and of speech more generally. But our influence for this is because people in the world use the content the volunteers add to the projects. The structure must be organised around them. We are here to build an encyclopaedia. > On Jul 7, 2021, at 12:59 AM, Željko Blaće wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 6, 2021, Ciell Wikipedia wrote: >> Thank you Bill, I always find organisation charts very much enlightening, >> and have been missing something like it for the WMF for some time now. > > I feel the same. We need much much more of diagramatic content and higher > level of organizational understanding for all Wikimedia contributors. > > >> I think all the departments of the WMF-side are equal, right? For instance, >> legal has no higher 'status' then fundraising or research: employees are >> equals, just with a different function in the organisation.Therefore all the >> different departments should be presented in a horizontal line, not a >> vertical one, like in this one for example. > > Kind of good point, but maybe scale (same size) is enough to represent > equals, rather than direction/orientation? Not an expert. > > BTW. > .svg file export would be best > for the posibility of translation > within Wikimedia Commons ;-) > > > Best, Z. > >> Vriendelijke groet, >> Ciell >> >> >> Op di 6 jul. 2021 om 01:03 schreef Bill Takatoshi : >>> Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look >>> like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new >>> email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from >>> there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems >>> sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since >>> improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have >>> since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't >>> allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous >>> submission(s). >>> >>> This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look >>> like in one year's time: >>> >>> https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png >>> >>> Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I >>> am especially interested in your critique of this prediction. >>> >>> Thank you! >>> >>> -Will >>> ___ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DURUHZ3WN7QBQSXWLUVU7ZRLDWHV42X2/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ZMPBBKEMIKICK2KLLZ466VB4V7PAHHWN/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NYBXY22IX3JGH3ADCLC2GTYG4YQJ4ESI/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
