Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

During this weekend I've been preparing a draft for a Global RFC intended
for all admins of all Wikimedia projects. I would appreciate some
input/copy-editing.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Micru/Draft_RFC

And the same for the draft invitation:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Micru/Draft_RFC_message

After comments/modifications I would like to translate both pages to as
many languages as possible.

@Peter: I am aware that some members of every community might be resistant
to this idea, and it is thanks to those people that the idea will keep
evolving to address all concerns that may arise. Let's hope that many
people are interested in participating!

Cheers,
Micru

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> 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 t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Peter Southwood]

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 
> 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.
>
> Regar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Pine W]

I thank my colleagues for this valuable discussion.

Here are a few more thoughts from my end:

* While my efforts for the next few months will focus on new contributors,
the issues with administrative backlogs, COI patrolling and investigations,
and a myriad of other issues which "mid-career" or relatively "senior"
Wikimedians are better suited to address are also on my mind. I hope that
if we can increase the retention of new contributors that some of these
people will remain long enough and become skillful enough to take on some
of the administrative work. I plan to research the effectiveness of my work
with new editors, including measures of the longevity and productivity of
people who use the resources that I develop, and my guess is that Mark
Miller will do the same, so there will likely be reports about the effects
of our (or at least my) work during 2018-2019 that will focus on new
Wikimedians but also look at long-term measures of success.

* WMF is planning to study what it calls "movement organizers" during its
2018-2019 Annual Plan, as a part of its Audiences work
.
The WMF AP currently says, "The goal of this study is to develop a shared
understanding of and investment in the needs of movement organizers at the
Wikimedia Foundation and in the Wikimedia movement, to ensure that this
strategic audience gets the support it needs to grow the Wikimedia
community. The milestone for this project will be a public report on the
research findings, including movement organizers personas to inform future
work in community outreach and software development. The report will offer
recommendations for further work to help movement organizers to succeed."

* Regarding fundraising for non-WMF financial support of Wikimedians, I
hope to meet with Micru about this subject in July. I imagine that we will
share further updates when we have finished setting up the logistics. From
my perspective, this meeting doesn't need to be confidential, so anyone who
is civil would be welcome to participate. This is a long term project, and
I suggest that we have very moderate expectations for the foreseeable
future.

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Anders Wennersten]

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 
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, 




___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Pine,

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 4:31 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> This sounds like another good question for Nicole.

Indeed, but she might be busy or in vacation. If she doesn't get involved
into this conversation in the next days I will open a new thread about it.

> * There are a number of people who are working on facilitating and
> improving the experience for new editors.

That is very nice, and it should happen (including the project you are
working on which seems very useful). Additionally to the experience of new
editors, one should consider the experience of old editors, because that
also reflects on the health of the community and the work atmosphere
created by them, which in the end also affects new editors. It's not the
same to work in an environment that is hostile and unfriendly, that in an
environment where people listen to each other, and try to find common
ground. As said before (I think), I believe this transformation has to
happen from initiative of the volunteers themselves. The WMF can help with
tools, employees, and resources if they are willing to, but if the
volunteers do not commit to change, nothing will be achieved.

> * I am very interested in non-WMF funding for affiliate and community
> projects.

You indeed make a good point about non-WMF funding. It's true that you are
very outspoken and I value what you do for the spirit of the community. I
think that is a value we should nurture in everybody, specially in
volunteers who accept donations, and that there should be a way for the
donations to flow directly to volunteers or to projects without passing
through the hands of the WMF. I do not know what would be the best approach
to materialize this in practice, either by using an external platform (like
Patreon) or building our own. However, it should be taken into account that
at the moment the main source of exposure, which are donation banners to
collect community money, are administered by the WMF, so that limits the
capacity to find donors for individuals or small organizations.

> If you or others would be interested, perhaps we could have a
> video-conference meeting at some point regarding ideas for non-WMF funding
> sources.

Excellent idea! I'll send you a private message with my availability/time
zone and when we find a suitable moment, maybe we could invite others to
join too. (If someone feels that they need to be in this conversation,
please do express your interest to me and I will take your request into
consideration when selecting a date)

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Pine W]

Hi Micru,

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:36 AM, David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

> Pine,
> It is nice of you that you thought about including these topics in the WMF
> strategy process, which I assume it is an ongoing process and not a one-off
> event. However as the 2017 cycle ended, I am unable to find the way to
> incorporate new ideas into the process. I would have expected to find a
> discussion page where new input can be taken into consideration, but it
> might not be the case.
>
>
This sounds like another good question for Nicole.



> I consider that the importance of admin decline in Wikipedias is really
> high, and at the same time I understand why you or anybody else would not
> like to do some tasks as volunteer. For this reason, while I do not like
> the idea of employees doing project activities, I feel that by creating a
> scheme where volunteers become empowered/liberated from work through direct
> donations could be part of a practical way of addressing the issue. I'm
> very sensitive to potential pitfalls and for this reason I consider that
> the feedback given by Yaroslav is extremely important, and that any
> donation to volunteers should happen only if they are committed to a
> personal transformation, that involves developing the capacity for
> listening, humility, and other values important for the project. I think
> this is only part of the story so far, and at this point the only thing I
> can do in my capacity as volunteer is to steward the conversation, and
> bring it to an increasing number of people as the understanding on this
> topic increases.
>
>

Thank you for your interest in this issue. I'll make a few further points.

* There are a number of people who are working on facilitating and
improving the experience for new editors. There are existing projects like
the English Wikipedia Teahouse and various help channels. During the
2018-2019 fiscal year, my understanding is that WMF intends to reconstitute
the "Growth Team" to attempt to improve the experience of new editors. Mark
Miller is the project manager for this, and I am pinging him here in case
he would like to comment. Meanwhile, I am working on the project that I
previously called LearnWiki
,
which I plan to re-brand later this year for trademark reasons (eventually
I will publish a new name), and in my continuation of the project I am
making modifications to the project's original design. I hope that both
Mark and I will be able to demonstrate benefits from our work in 2018-2019.

* I am very interested in non-WMF funding for affiliate and community
projects. As you probably have noticed, I can be outspoken when I have
concerns about WMF, and I am worried that if I become financially dependent
on WMF then I would be much less willing to express my views out of fear
that WMF would eliminate my funding. So, while I want to work on my project
which I think would support the community's vision and goals, I would
prefer to obtain non-WMF funding. I hope that non-WMF funding could also be
available to other community members and affiliates to work on activities
which WMF has not funded, such as on-wiki administrative work for which
there is significant demand but too little volunteer capacity. I can't make
any promises regarding the availability of non-WMF funding for myself or
others, but I am having off-wiki conversations about these issues and I
hope to be able to report some success within a few years. In the meantime,
I think that we are stuck with the status quo, although I am hopeful that
in the context of the strategy process that WMF will be supportive of the
idea of diversifying funding sources for the community beyond WMF. I am
trying go avoid *competing* with WMF for funding, which I think would be
viewed negatively by WMF, and instead look for outside sources which WMF
has not tapped for funding. I would like to cooperate with WMF where
possible, and so I would prefer that my fundraising efforts be "parallel
with" rather than "in competition with" WMF efforts.

If you or others would be interested, perhaps we could have a
video-conference meeting at some point regarding ideas for non-WMF funding
sources.

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )





> These are difficult topics indeed, but only by dealing with them we can
> grow as a movement.
>
> Regards,
> Micru
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Micru )
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Based on the limited information that I have, it seems to me that there
> > are already numerous contribtors who are paid to engage in promotional
> > activity on Wikipedia, whether declared or undeclared, and the community
> > does not have adequate human resources to patrol and investigate all of
> > these. I expect that the problem will continue to get worse unless WMF
> gets
> > more energetic about investigating TOS violatio

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop? Is it only
for admins and if so why and, is it only for English Wikipedia and if so
why?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 28 May 2018 at 15:48, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards the community
> and that is laudable. As you, over the years I have also spent countless
> hours in this community, and I do not regret it either, I feel it has been
> and it still is a good investment of my time, and my dedication. You, as
> me, are able to do all that because we are not financially disadvantaged.
> You are not in need of any donation, you can do what you are doing without
> support and that is great. However that you do not need those resources
> does not mean that other people might not need them.
>
> Every volunteer can work in this community as long as their material needs
> are covered. If they cannot support themselves, we leave them to their own
> devices. That is totally opposite to cultivating a sense of community. In
> that regard I do not consider my comment disingenuous, but a reflection of
> what is common practice now.
> In my view if the community has resources, and a member of the community
> (more specifically, a dedicated member) needs them, then the community also
> should be generous with them, so that they don't have to leave.
>
> When I imagine what would be my ideal case scenario, I would also avoid
> giving disadvantaged volunteers money, I would give them food and a place
> to stay instead, but since that is even harder to materialize (at least at
> this point of time given the geographic dispersion and lack of real
> estate), I feel that donating resources to volunteers (that in turn have
> been donated, remember that) is a good idea to further the sense of
> community.
>
> I'm confused by your comment, can you please explain what makes you think
> that by donating to volunteers "they stop being volunteers in that aspect
> of what they do"?
>
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Pine,
It is nice of you that you thought about including these topics in the WMF
strategy process, which I assume it is an ongoing process and not a one-off
event. However as the 2017 cycle ended, I am unable to find the way to
incorporate new ideas into the process. I would have expected to find a
discussion page where new input can be taken into consideration, but it
might not be the case.

I consider that the importance of admin decline in Wikipedias is really
high, and at the same time I understand why you or anybody else would not
like to do some tasks as volunteer. For this reason, while I do not like
the idea of employees doing project activities, I feel that by creating a
scheme where volunteers become empowered/liberated from work through direct
donations could be part of a practical way of addressing the issue. I'm
very sensitive to potential pitfalls and for this reason I consider that
the feedback given by Yaroslav is extremely important, and that any
donation to volunteers should happen only if they are committed to a
personal transformation, that involves developing the capacity for
listening, humility, and other values important for the project. I think
this is only part of the story so far, and at this point the only thing I
can do in my capacity as volunteer is to steward the conversation, and
bring it to an increasing number of people as the understanding on this
topic increases.

These are difficult topics indeed, but only by dealing with them we can
grow as a movement.

Regards,
Micru
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Micru )

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Based on the limited information that I have, it seems to me that there
> are already numerous contribtors who are paid to engage in promotional
> activity on Wikipedia, whether declared or undeclared, and the community
> does not have adequate human resources to patrol and investigate all of
> these. I expect that the problem will continue to get worse unless WMF gets
> more energetic about investigating TOS violations involving undeclared COI
> and WMF becomes predictable about extracting financial penalties that are
> severe enough to deter most of the undeclared COI contributors.
> Unfortunately, as far as I know, WMF has been largely passive about the
> problem of undeclared COI and has not announced any plans to become more
> aggressive.
> As nice as it would be if everyone could afford and was willing to work
> for free, this is not the case. If it was then we could safely eliminate
> the salaries of the entire WMF staff. However, I think that financial
> support makes sense for some paid staff to handle activities like network
> operations, interface design, legal defense, and responses to safety
> problems.
> Some types of Wikimedia activities are better suited to volunteer work
> than others. I encourage volunteers to avoid burning themselves out; there
> are some activities that I did in the past that I would not do again as a
> volunteer. Better to be an occasional and long-term contributor than to get
> burned out.
> I have some ideas about how to pay people to do certain types of work
> that, so far, WMF has not funded. Unfortunately these are merely ideas and
> not likely to become reality in the short term. Perhaps later this year or
> in the next few years I will have specific proposals with reasonable
> chances for sustainable success.
> I share the concern that paid participants in the Wikiverse, like staff of
> WMF and affiliates, WMF grantees, and potentially like the paid
> contributors that I have in mind, may become so numerous that they can
> drown out the consensus of the volunteers. Unfortunately I do not have easy
> solutions for this issue. We could prohibit all paid contributors from
> participating in  RFCs and related decision processes, but we would be
> largely relying on people to self-disclose their paid status, which seems
> unlikely to be adequate.
> Perhaps the issues that we are discussing in this conversation should be
> included in the Structures and Systems prong of the WMF strategy process. I
> am pinging Nicole to ask for her input about that idea. However, keep in
> mind that the strategy process is financially sponsored by WMF, and it is
> not free of potential conflicts with the interests of WMF.
> I wish that I could be more optimistic. These are difficult topics.
> Regards,
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> null
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Pine W]

Based on the limited information that I have, it seems to me that there are 
already numerous contribtors who are paid to engage in promotional activity on 
Wikipedia, whether declared or undeclared, and the community does not have 
adequate human resources to patrol and investigate all of these. I expect that 
the problem will continue to get worse unless WMF gets more energetic about 
investigating TOS violations involving undeclared COI and WMF becomes 
predictable about extracting financial penalties that are severe enough to 
deter most of the undeclared COI contributors. Unfortunately, as far as I know, 
WMF has been largely passive about the problem of undeclared COI and has not 
announced any plans to become more aggressive.
As nice as it would be if everyone could afford and was willing to work for 
free, this is not the case. If it was then we could safely eliminate the 
salaries of the entire WMF staff. However, I think that financial support makes 
sense for some paid staff to handle activities like network operations, 
interface design, legal defense, and responses to safety problems.
Some types of Wikimedia activities are better suited to volunteer work than 
others. I encourage volunteers to avoid burning themselves out; there are some 
activities that I did in the past that I would not do again as a volunteer. 
Better to be an occasional and long-term contributor than to get burned out.
I have some ideas about how to pay people to do certain types of work that, so 
far, WMF has not funded. Unfortunately these are merely ideas and not likely to 
become reality in the short term. Perhaps later this year or in the next few 
years I will have specific proposals with reasonable chances for sustainable 
success.
I share the concern that paid participants in the Wikiverse, like staff of WMF 
and affiliates, WMF grantees, and potentially like the paid contributors that I 
have in mind, may become so numerous that they can drown out the consensus of 
the volunteers. Unfortunately I do not have easy solutions for this issue. We 
could prohibit all paid contributors from participating in  RFCs and related 
decision processes, but we would be largely relying on people to self-disclose 
their paid status, which seems unlikely to be adequate.
Perhaps the issues that we are discussing in this conversation should be 
included in the Structures and Systems prong of the WMF strategy process. I am 
pinging Nicole to ask for her input about that idea. However, keep in mind that 
the strategy process is financially sponsored by WMF, and it is not free of 
potential conflicts with the interests of WMF.
I wish that I could be more optimistic. These are difficult topics.
Regards,
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
null
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hey Yaroslav, thanks for sharing your view. I find very interesting what
you mention, and if you have experienced yourself it must be a real effect
on people. Five years ago, when I was awarded an IEG grant, I didn't feel
the same effect on me. In fact it was quite the opposite, I felt under
pressure to be worthy of it, and I made an additional effort to make sure
that all people I talked to felt listened. This is not easy, because it
requires the will to understand what the other person is trying to say, and
admit that they have a point.
Of course this is just limited to my experience, but if there was a
requirement to commit to listen empathically before receiving any kind of
fund, perhaps the effect of feeling "superior" or "entitled" could be
neutered.

One of the things that I appreciate most about our movement is the capacity
to look deeply into potential pitfalls and to put safeguards against them.
I see this here too. That something seems risky doesn't mean that it
shouldn't be done, but it is necessary to discuss it thoroughly and see
under which conditions it would be safe(r). And still, the experience is
invaluable and can show whether the fears were justified or not, and from
there, iterate and improve.

Now that I think about it, wouldn't it be wonderful if the incentive of the
donation could be used as a way to ensure that the recipients are commited
to train themselves in a set of values? For instance you mentioned one that
is extremely important, the ability to listen, to make space for what the
other person is saying, and to incorporate their view into the
conversation. I think that there are more values that would be very welcome
in our community, like easing the pressure on one another, calming
arguments instead of fueling them, and in general ensuring that civility
and harmony have priority above anything else.
There must have been initiatives before to introduce these kind of values,
but I am unable to find them. Any pointer would be appreciated.

You also mentioned "paid contributors, who would be defending their output
just because they need it to report for their salary". As said before, I do
not envision donations to volunteers as a "salary", but more as a token of
appreciation from the community, while keeping the independence to act
according to their will. I do not know which kind of mechanisms should be
put in place for the community to make sure that only the right people
would receive this kind of gratitude, however I doubt that they would be
"reporting for their salary" (another kind of slavery), but instead
interacting with the community normally and making sure that they behave
excellently.

Thank you for digging deeper into this topic.

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Yaroslav Blanter]

I am actually fully with Gnangarra here. I am also an unpaid volunteer who
invested a lot of hours of my free time into various Wikimedia projects
(and mostly getting a lot of shit in reward, but this is not the point
now). I did have an experience of disagreements with people who were either
paid chapter functionaries, or semi-paid  - meaning they would have
functionary friends and would be the first in line to get all kind of
subsidies such as for example Wikimania travel scholarships. My experience
is that I would always at some point back out. In the end of the day, I am
pretty much professionally successful, I do not need to prove anything to
myself or to anybody else, and at some point I would ask myself - whether
this is really the best way to spend my free time by quarreling with people
who clearly are not willing to listen to me. On the other hand, they were
paid, and they were defending their point of view until the end just
because of that. As soon as there are not many of them they can be ignored,
or, if they become too harmful, they can be dealt with by the community. If
we start getting a considerable share of paid contributors, who would be
defending their output just because they need it to report for their salary
- it will become impossible to work in Wikipedia for independent
contributors.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 3:48 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

> Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards the community
> and that is laudable. As you, over the years I have also spent countless
> hours in this community, and I do not regret it either, I feel it has been
> and it still is a good investment of my time, and my dedication. You, as
> me, are able to do all that because we are not financially disadvantaged.
> You are not in need of any donation, you can do what you are doing without
> support and that is great. However that you do not need those resources
> does not mean that other people might not need them.
>
> Every volunteer can work in this community as long as their material needs
> are covered. If they cannot support themselves, we leave them to their own
> devices. That is totally opposite to cultivating a sense of community. In
> that regard I do not consider my comment disingenuous, but a reflection of
> what is common practice now.
> In my view if the community has resources, and a member of the community
> (more specifically, a dedicated member) needs them, then the community also
> should be generous with them, so that they don't have to leave.
>
> When I imagine what would be my ideal case scenario, I would also avoid
> giving disadvantaged volunteers money, I would give them food and a place
> to stay instead, but since that is even harder to materialize (at least at
> this point of time given the geographic dispersion and lack of real
> estate), I feel that donating resources to volunteers (that in turn have
> been donated, remember that) is a good idea to further the sense of
> community.
>
> I'm confused by your comment, can you please explain what makes you think
> that by donating to volunteers "they stop being volunteers in that aspect
> of what they do"?
>
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards the community
and that is laudable. As you, over the years I have also spent countless
hours in this community, and I do not regret it either, I feel it has been
and it still is a good investment of my time, and my dedication. You, as
me, are able to do all that because we are not financially disadvantaged.
You are not in need of any donation, you can do what you are doing without
support and that is great. However that you do not need those resources
does not mean that other people might not need them.

Every volunteer can work in this community as long as their material needs
are covered. If they cannot support themselves, we leave them to their own
devices. That is totally opposite to cultivating a sense of community. In
that regard I do not consider my comment disingenuous, but a reflection of
what is common practice now.
In my view if the community has resources, and a member of the community
(more specifically, a dedicated member) needs them, then the community also
should be generous with them, so that they don't have to leave.

When I imagine what would be my ideal case scenario, I would also avoid
giving disadvantaged volunteers money, I would give them food and a place
to stay instead, but since that is even harder to materialize (at least at
this point of time given the geographic dispersion and lack of real
estate), I feel that donating resources to volunteers (that in turn have
been donated, remember that) is a good idea to further the sense of
community.

I'm confused by your comment, can you please explain what makes you think
that by donating to volunteers "they stop being volunteers in that aspect
of what they do"?

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Gnangarra]

I think thats a little disingenuous to say that we dont take care of our
volunteers and that its a negative message to not give some financial
reward to admins.


We came here by choice, whether we are here for a long time or a short time we
chose to add to the sum of all knowledge for myriad of reasons.  Some of us
choose to accept additional functions to support what we are creating,
whether thats to clean up the projects or reach out to new contributors.
Over the last 13 years I've brought books to access sources, cameras to
provide photographs, I've spent 1000's of hours travelling at my own
expense to get photos, to talk to people, to encourage them to bring more
knowledge onto wikipedia.  Yes I've benefited along the way, I made
wonderful friends, I been to places I wouldnt have got the opportunity to
go to, I learnt a lot of amazing things and in my own way I'd like to think
I've made a lasting difference.  Actually I know that everyone else like me
has combined to make a difference, I've been privileged to see wikipedia in
use in class rooms helping students to learn, I've seen it used on social
media to answer questions and in real life to do the same thing.

I've seen how people with disabilities can be a part of a community where
those disabilities dont define that person, I've seen how oppressed
minorities have been lifted up just by seeing their culture included and
being able to add to that without fear or repercussions.

Every volunteer gets rewarded for what they do, when we shift to paying a
person they stop being volunteers in that aspect of what they do.   The
best reward the WMF could give is not cash, its helping more people
experience the in person connections and give them a greater sense of just
how magnificent this community really is through access to events,
scholarships, and other opportunities.

Never in all my time have I ever thought, or experienced anything that
remotely looks like the Wikimedia Community doesnt value what the
volunteers do, even when contributors push the envelope in negative ways.

On 28 May 2018 at 16:03, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> > My view is that the Foundation was suddenly (but not without warning)
> > made legally responsible for its own content after Trump made hosting
> > providers responsible for facilitating online prostitution
> > advertising, at pretty much the same time the GDPR went in to effect.
>
> I do not know enough about the bill to comment on this. I can say that even
> if the Foundation was made legally responsible for the content, in general
> the level of care and attention to detail seems to be quite high in most
> Wikipedias.
>
> > The Foundation has frequently tried a number of paid editing trials,
>
> Can you please point to me where to find them?
> Has been tried before donating directly to volunteers with no strings
> attached?
>
> > and I think that's a good thing because donors are likely to stabilize
> > at paying enough to pay all the past, present, and future wikipedias a
> > very comfortable hourly rate, plus interest, still have a large and
> > swiftly endowment to figure out how to invest responsibly, and will be
> > able to outfit offline applications such as space hotels with a new
> > LCARS skin I am trying to get Mike Okuda to commission.
>
> Realistically the money is always tight, however even with a limited amount
> of money it is still possible to do nice things for volunteers or at least
> for some of them.
> The Star Trek aspect of this shouldn't be fancy ideas about the future, but
> realistic ones like enabling volunteers to follow their passion, freeing
> them from work whenever possible, supporting them in the mission, and
> joining efforts with other non-profit organizations to create a favorable
> social climate.
>
> > I think the Foundation employees...
>
> Here I was referring mainly to volunteers, specially those who take a heavy
> burden on their shoulders individually. It can be argued whether WMF
> employees are receiving enough generosity from the Foundation or not, what
> is clear is that employees already receive *some* generosity. On the other
> hand volunteers receive no direct generosity, unless they find other
> activities that qualify to apply for a grant. That in my opinion conveys
> the message that if you are a volunteer you don't deserve to be taken care
> of by the community just by doing what you are doing, which in my opinion
> is a very negative message that we are giving to volunteers, donors, and to
> society in general.
>
> Kind 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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://inc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

> My view is that the Foundation was suddenly (but not without warning)
> made legally responsible for its own content after Trump made hosting
> providers responsible for facilitating online prostitution
> advertising, at pretty much the same time the GDPR went in to effect.

I do not know enough about the bill to comment on this. I can say that even
if the Foundation was made legally responsible for the content, in general
the level of care and attention to detail seems to be quite high in most
Wikipedias.

> The Foundation has frequently tried a number of paid editing trials,

Can you please point to me where to find them?
Has been tried before donating directly to volunteers with no strings
attached?

> and I think that's a good thing because donors are likely to stabilize
> at paying enough to pay all the past, present, and future wikipedias a
> very comfortable hourly rate, plus interest, still have a large and
> swiftly endowment to figure out how to invest responsibly, and will be
> able to outfit offline applications such as space hotels with a new
> LCARS skin I am trying to get Mike Okuda to commission.

Realistically the money is always tight, however even with a limited amount
of money it is still possible to do nice things for volunteers or at least
for some of them.
The Star Trek aspect of this shouldn't be fancy ideas about the future, but
realistic ones like enabling volunteers to follow their passion, freeing
them from work whenever possible, supporting them in the mission, and
joining efforts with other non-profit organizations to create a favorable
social climate.

> I think the Foundation employees...

Here I was referring mainly to volunteers, specially those who take a heavy
burden on their shoulders individually. It can be argued whether WMF
employees are receiving enough generosity from the Foundation or not, what
is clear is that employees already receive *some* generosity. On the other
hand volunteers receive no direct generosity, unless they find other
activities that qualify to apply for a grant. That in my opinion conveys
the message that if you are a volunteer you don't deserve to be taken care
of by the community just by doing what you are doing, which in my opinion
is a very negative message that we are giving to volunteers, donors, and to
society in general.

Kind 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[James Salsman]

> I am open to more input, and more exchange of views.

My view is that the Foundation was suddenly (but not without warning)
made legally responsible for its own content after Trump made hosting
providers responsible for facilitating online prostitution
advertising, at pretty much the same time the GDPR went in to effect.
The Foundation has frequently tried a number of paid editing trials,
and I think that's a good thing because donors are likely to stabilize
at paying enough to pay all the past, present, and future wikipedias a
very comfortable hourly rate, plus interest, still have a large and
swiftly endowment to figure out how to invest responsibly, and will be
able to outfit offline applications such as space hotels with a new
LCARS skin I am trying to get Mike Okuda to commission.

> After this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and
> see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the
> community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it
> happen.

I think the Foundation employees know I support them. I recently asked
their boss to make sure they are able to afford the median SF home
capable of bird ranching. For the record, I think most crucial tech
employees in Norcal are not paid what they are actually worth, because
then they would have greater labor mobility. This has come about after
attempts at colluding in no-poaching agreements and needs to be
corrected. The Foundation needs to take the lead on lowering their
income inequality by raising employee salaries. (As the topic has
included appropriate use of donor funds.)

Best regards,
Jim

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

1) The donations from the Wikimedia supporters do not have any strings
attached, they are given in good faith with no expectations of anything
back. There are many charities that donate to the WMF without any fixed
metrics/kpi about what the WMF is doing with the money. Given these two
precedents it seems possible in my view to donate money either as an
individual or as an organization to another individual/organization without
expecting anything from them. And I do not have any information about that
fact having a negative impact on any charity organisation that has donated
to the WMF in the past. Can you please explain how it would affect
negatively the impact status of the WMF or any affiliate if they would
donate money with no conditions attached?

2) Can you cite any legal precedent where given donations was considered as
taking any kind of role?

3) How is that different from the risk that volunteers are already facing?
Do you have any example of a volunteer suffering consequences by receiving
a grant from the WMF?

Regards,
Micru

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:19 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> every grant from the WMF or affiliates have fixed metrics/kpi(key
> performance indicators) to ensure the grabt is doing what it set out to do,
> failing to do that would negatively impact its charity status.
>
> on the legal side the issue is centered around whether the wmf has any
> editorial oversight, even by giving grants or donations that specifically
> focus on the performance of admin/sysop functions of individuals  it could
> be consider as taking such a role.
>
> for the individuals sadly volunteers within the community have already
> experienced the dark side of what it is to be a wikimedian, to step that up
> to receiving some form of payment would potentially make people responsible
> for the content or seen as responsible putting them at greater risk.
>
>
>
> On 26 May 2018 at 22:49, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
>
> > I have the feeling that we need to clarify what it means to be a "paid
> > admin" vs a "community-supported volunteer".
> >
> > In my definition, a "paid admin" is a person who receives a salary to
> > perform a delimited function not necessarily aligned with his/her will.
> > There is a contractual obligation where a organization is paying the
> person
> > in exchange of some tasks. Which is basically the definition of a job.
> >
> > On the other hand I see a "community-supported volunteer" as a volunteer
> > who receives a grant/donation to be able to support himself/herself while
> > doing whatever he/she feels like doing in the project (with oversight of
> > the community), which normally are core activities that cannot be bundled
> > up in a "project grant".
> >
> > Do these definitions make the distinction clear?
> >
> > Gnangarra, given those definitions, could you please explain how giving a
> > grant/donation to a person shifts the WMF or an affiliate to being
> legally
> > responsible for the actions of this person? As I see it if I make a
> > donation to a person I am not responsible for their actions, but I might
> be
> > wrong.
> > And in which way would that expose them in their countries?
> >
> > I would also like to express my gratitude to you for participating in
> this
> > conversation with a simple thank you.
> >
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> Order
> here
>  reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
> .
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Gnangarra]

every grant from the WMF or affiliates have fixed metrics/kpi(key
performance indicators) to ensure the grabt is doing what it set out to do,
failing to do that would negatively impact its charity status.

on the legal side the issue is centered around whether the wmf has any
editorial oversight, even by giving grants or donations that specifically
focus on the performance of admin/sysop functions of individuals  it could
be consider as taking such a role.

for the individuals sadly volunteers within the community have already
experienced the dark side of what it is to be a wikimedian, to step that up
to receiving some form of payment would potentially make people responsible
for the content or seen as responsible putting them at greater risk.



On 26 May 2018 at 22:49, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> I have the feeling that we need to clarify what it means to be a "paid
> admin" vs a "community-supported volunteer".
>
> In my definition, a "paid admin" is a person who receives a salary to
> perform a delimited function not necessarily aligned with his/her will.
> There is a contractual obligation where a organization is paying the person
> in exchange of some tasks. Which is basically the definition of a job.
>
> On the other hand I see a "community-supported volunteer" as a volunteer
> who receives a grant/donation to be able to support himself/herself while
> doing whatever he/she feels like doing in the project (with oversight of
> the community), which normally are core activities that cannot be bundled
> up in a "project grant".
>
> Do these definitions make the distinction clear?
>
> Gnangarra, given those definitions, could you please explain how giving a
> grant/donation to a person shifts the WMF or an affiliate to being legally
> responsible for the actions of this person? As I see it if I make a
> donation to a person I am not responsible for their actions, but I might be
> wrong.
> And in which way would that expose them in their countries?
>
> I would also like to express my gratitude to you for participating in this
> conversation with a simple thank you.
>
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here

.
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

I have the feeling that we need to clarify what it means to be a "paid
admin" vs a "community-supported volunteer".

In my definition, a "paid admin" is a person who receives a salary to
perform a delimited function not necessarily aligned with his/her will.
There is a contractual obligation where a organization is paying the person
in exchange of some tasks. Which is basically the definition of a job.

On the other hand I see a "community-supported volunteer" as a volunteer
who receives a grant/donation to be able to support himself/herself while
doing whatever he/she feels like doing in the project (with oversight of
the community), which normally are core activities that cannot be bundled
up in a "project grant".

Do these definitions make the distinction clear?

Gnangarra, given those definitions, could you please explain how giving a
grant/donation to a person shifts the WMF or an affiliate to being legally
responsible for the actions of this person? As I see it if I make a
donation to a person I am not responsible for their actions, but I might be
wrong.
And in which way would that expose them in their countries?

I would also like to express my gratitude to you for participating in this
conversation with a simple thank you.

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Gnangarra]

Having paid admins would shift the WMF or an affiliate in to being legally
responsible for the content on Wikipedia, it would also potentailly expose
those editors to additional issue in their own countries, or during their
travel

On 26 May 2018 at 17:52, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> > it would be too controversial having paid administrators.
>
> Controversial for who? So far nobody stepped into this conversation to say
> that direct support of community members with community money is not ok for
> whatever reason they might have.
>
> Regards,
> Micru
>
> On Sat, 26 May 2018, 10:35 Anders Wennersten, 
> wrote:
>
> > My own reflection reading this discussion is that there is a difference
> > between vandalism and POV pushing.
> >
> > For vandalism we have better routines in place and also tools like ORES,
> > and also a system of steward who can acts in cases of crosswikivandals
> >
> > For Pov pushing and especially cross wiki POV pushing we have no
> > routines in place, and no roles like he steward who can help out for
> > these cases.
> >
> > I also have only positive experience interacting with stewards, both in
> > their willingness to help and alertness. And they have a very good tone
> > in conversations. And they are a bit separated from the communities.
> >
> > And my loose thought in the end of my starting mail, was more to be open
> > to having paid something like POV-stewards who can get involved in tough
> > POVedits. And that these can offload the burden on admin when things
> > getting nasty
> >
> > I am not a supporter of paid editors, and think it would be too
> > controversial having paid administrators.
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Den 2018-05-26 kl. 09:38, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:
> > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, James Salsman 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm not sure that's true. Whether it started as a game of Nomic or
> > >> not, almost all of the admins have been elected through a certainly
> > >> established process.
> > >>
> > > That someone does an activity or that this person has been elected to
> > > perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It
> > might
> > > be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about
> > > "profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation
> > > becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a
> > > full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of
> > > professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training,
> > > ethics regulation, and licensing.
> > >
> > > In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time
> > > based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel
> > > that the main need is talent retention while keeping the
> volunteer-driven
> > > spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing
> > > changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and
> > > consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.
> > >
> > >  From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views.
> After
> > > this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved
> and
> > > see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the
> > > community, then request to the community the necessary action to make
> it
> > > happen.
> > >
> > > I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this
> > mailing
> > > list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and
> > > promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that
> > > there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone
> reading
> > > this message to at least join this conversation.
> > >
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

> it would be too controversial having paid administrators.

Controversial for who? So far nobody stepped into this conversation to say
that direct support of community members with community money is not ok for
whatever reason they might have.

Regards,
Micru

On Sat, 26 May 2018, 10:35 Anders Wennersten, 
wrote:

> My own reflection reading this discussion is that there is a difference
> between vandalism and POV pushing.
>
> For vandalism we have better routines in place and also tools like ORES,
> and also a system of steward who can acts in cases of crosswikivandals
>
> For Pov pushing and especially cross wiki POV pushing we have no
> routines in place, and no roles like he steward who can help out for
> these cases.
>
> I also have only positive experience interacting with stewards, both in
> their willingness to help and alertness. And they have a very good tone
> in conversations. And they are a bit separated from the communities.
>
> And my loose thought in the end of my starting mail, was more to be open
> to having paid something like POV-stewards who can get involved in tough
> POVedits. And that these can offload the burden on admin when things
> getting nasty
>
> I am not a supporter of paid editors, and think it would be too
> controversial having paid administrators.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Den 2018-05-26 kl. 09:38, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:
> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure that's true. Whether it started as a game of Nomic or
> >> not, almost all of the admins have been elected through a certainly
> >> established process.
> >>
> > That someone does an activity or that this person has been elected to
> > perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It
> might
> > be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about
> > "profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation
> > becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a
> > full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of
> > professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training,
> > ethics regulation, and licensing.
> >
> > In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time
> > based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel
> > that the main need is talent retention while keeping the volunteer-driven
> > spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing
> > changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and
> > consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.
> >
> >  From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views. After
> > this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and
> > see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the
> > community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it
> > happen.
> >
> > I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this
> mailing
> > list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and
> > promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that
> > there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone reading
> > this message to at least join this conversation.
> >
> > 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,
> 
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Anders Wennersten]

My own reflection reading this discussion is that there is a difference 
between vandalism and POV pushing.


For vandalism we have better routines in place and also tools like ORES, 
and also a system of steward who can acts in cases of crosswikivandals


For Pov pushing and especially cross wiki POV pushing we have no 
routines in place, and no roles like he steward who can help out for 
these cases.


I also have only positive experience interacting with stewards, both in 
their willingness to help and alertness. And they have a very good tone 
in conversations. And they are a bit separated from the communities.


And my loose thought in the end of my starting mail, was more to be open 
to having paid something like POV-stewards who can get involved in tough 
POVedits. And that these can offload the burden on admin when things 
getting nasty


I am not a supporter of paid editors, and think it would be too 
controversial having paid administrators.


Anders






Den 2018-05-26 kl. 09:38, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, James Salsman  wrote:


I'm not sure that's true. Whether it started as a game of Nomic or
not, almost all of the admins have been elected through a certainly
established process.


That someone does an activity or that this person has been elected to
perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It might
be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about
"profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation
becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a
full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of
professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training,
ethics regulation, and licensing.

In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time
based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel
that the main need is talent retention while keeping the volunteer-driven
spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing
changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and
consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.

 From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views. After
this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and
see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the
community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it
happen.

I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this mailing
list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and
promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that
there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone reading
this message to at least join this conversation.

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, 




___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> I'm not sure that's true. Whether it started as a game of Nomic or
> not, almost all of the admins have been elected through a certainly
> established process.
>

That someone does an activity or that this person has been elected to
perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It might
be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about
"profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation
becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a
full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of
professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training,
ethics regulation, and licensing.

In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time
based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel
that the main need is talent retention while keeping the volunteer-driven
spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing
changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and
consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.

From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views. After
this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and
see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the
community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it
happen.

I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this mailing
list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and
promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that
there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone reading
this message to at least join this conversation.

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[James Salsman]

>> Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and
>> hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential
>> characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia?

> There is a difference, and that is the degree of professionalization. The
> role of admin is not a profession because there are no stablished bodies
> that have defined who is a professional admin and who is not.

I'm not sure that's true. Whether it started as a game of Nomic or
not, almost all of the admins have been elected through a certainly
established process.




On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:16 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
>> Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and
>> hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential
>> characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia?
>>
>
> There is a difference, and that is the degree of professionalization. The
> role of admin is not a profession because there are no stablished bodies
> that have defined who is a professional admin and who is not. And still it
> would be difficult to professionalize since the distinction between
> volunteer/paid professional could make some people feel excluded (as in,
> "why is this person getting money for something I do for free?").
>
>
>> > the will to cooperate in our mission should have precedence over the
>> will to make a profit out of it
>>
>> Does that exclude the financially disadvantaged?
>
>
> The wikimedia projects assume that you have time to spare without any
> compensation and that everybody can do the same. That is not true. In my
> view the wikimedia projects are already excluding the financially
> disadvantaged, because the people who are part of this project do not have
> the direct experience necessary to understand that their reality is not the
> same as the reality out there, and as a result they might find difficult to
> take the perspective of a person who needs the financial means in order to
> be able to contribute.
>
> However, if the doors of generosity were open towards volunteers and flocks
> of people were attracted because of it, there wouldn't be enough resources
> for everyone, then how could I tell who deserves it most? I would follow a
> progressive approach by offering first little, and then more depending on
> how much the community appreciates the skills and involvement of this
> person in the mission. There are many ways to keep track of said
> appreciation, but writing encyclopedic articles about each
> community-supported volunteer (not on Wikipedia) could be very effective,
> also to create community bonds and to understand better the person behind
> the nickname.
>
> If anything, we would remove the financial barrier that is keeping some
> (many?) people from contributing in the first place.
>
> The thing is that a project like this should start small in order to learn
> from the experience what works socially/practically, and how it integrates
> conceptually into our worldview. I believe that it should be totally in the
> hands of the volunteer community, because appraisal of every day tasks can
> only be done if you are involved in the project and understand the
> challenges, the tasks, the pitfalls, and what it means to do a good job.
> For instance I normally review property proposals for creation in Wikidata,
> it requires a set of skills and dedication that only the handful of people
> who understand the challenge could evaluate. And there is more, how do you
> evaluate the time spent building community and creating a good atmosphere
> unless you are part of it?
>
> I appreciate your questions because they are very interesting to examine.
> Regarding the reputation tracking system I assume that it would only work
> for the restricted use-case of direct article editing (cf. exopedianism),
> but not for the whole range of tasks that volunteers perform. In any case,
> thanks for bringing it to my attention.
>
> 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, 
> 

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:16 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and
> hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential
> characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia?
>

There is a difference, and that is the degree of professionalization. The
role of admin is not a profession because there are no stablished bodies
that have defined who is a professional admin and who is not. And still it
would be difficult to professionalize since the distinction between
volunteer/paid professional could make some people feel excluded (as in,
"why is this person getting money for something I do for free?").


> > the will to cooperate in our mission should have precedence over the
> will to make a profit out of it
>
> Does that exclude the financially disadvantaged?


The wikimedia projects assume that you have time to spare without any
compensation and that everybody can do the same. That is not true. In my
view the wikimedia projects are already excluding the financially
disadvantaged, because the people who are part of this project do not have
the direct experience necessary to understand that their reality is not the
same as the reality out there, and as a result they might find difficult to
take the perspective of a person who needs the financial means in order to
be able to contribute.

However, if the doors of generosity were open towards volunteers and flocks
of people were attracted because of it, there wouldn't be enough resources
for everyone, then how could I tell who deserves it most? I would follow a
progressive approach by offering first little, and then more depending on
how much the community appreciates the skills and involvement of this
person in the mission. There are many ways to keep track of said
appreciation, but writing encyclopedic articles about each
community-supported volunteer (not on Wikipedia) could be very effective,
also to create community bonds and to understand better the person behind
the nickname.

If anything, we would remove the financial barrier that is keeping some
(many?) people from contributing in the first place.

The thing is that a project like this should start small in order to learn
from the experience what works socially/practically, and how it integrates
conceptually into our worldview. I believe that it should be totally in the
hands of the volunteer community, because appraisal of every day tasks can
only be done if you are involved in the project and understand the
challenges, the tasks, the pitfalls, and what it means to do a good job.
For instance I normally review property proposals for creation in Wikidata,
it requires a set of skills and dedication that only the handful of people
who understand the challenge could evaluate. And there is more, how do you
evaluate the time spent building community and creating a good atmosphere
unless you are part of it?

I appreciate your questions because they are very interesting to examine.
Regarding the reputation tracking system I assume that it would only work
for the restricted use-case of direct article editing (cf. exopedianism),
but not for the whole range of tasks that volunteers perform. In any case,
thanks for bringing it to my attention.

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[James Salsman]

>... about the classical employer-employee relationship, I am totally
> against it. The reason is that there is so much effort wasted tracking
> and keeping people accountable

Priyanka Mandikal implemented a way to keep paid editors accountable
using reputation tracking two years ago:

https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/

Accountability is calculated as an agreement ratio between reviewers:

https://github.com/priyankamandikal/arowf/blob/master/app.py#L462

>...that is not the basis for a healthy relationship for a Wikimedia volunteer

Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and
hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential
characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia?

> the will to cooperate in our mission should have precedence over the will to 
> make a profit out of it

Does that exclude the financially disadvantaged?

Best regards,
Jim


On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 5:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> You compare two things that are not related and where there is a conflict
> of interest. As it is, we are severely lacking in information in many of
> our Wikipedias. Given that not even percent of the humans in Wikidata is
> from Africa, the #AfricaGap is bigger than the #GenderGap (no percent vs
> 16/17% of humans). This gets us into issues about English Wikipedia
> administration versus what it covers and how we can get people to write
> about for instance Africa and Gender.
>
> Your interest of keeping up with vandalism and the fight against massive
> POV pushing, paid editing is something else altogether. I have no interest
> at all in your struggles, I will not volunteer to become an admin. I find
> that admins do and what I would expect from them is incompatible with what
> I want to spend time on. The aggression in many conversations I have come
> across makes me cringe.
>
> When you want to improve issues that have to do with vandalism, POV, there
> are possibilities in tooling. One partial solution that I have in mind
> would improve the quality in articles, makes it obvious where there is a
> difference allowing for more focus. The point/problem is that this will not
> be specific to any one Wikipedia, it will show differences between projects
> and consequently it is not specifically a tool with a focus on POV pushing.
> With sufficient UI attention it may get more of the focus you are seeking.
>
> As you seek control of our data, quality is king, it is what we should
> build upon. When you seek to exclude the interest of others over your own,
> I would hate to see you succeed.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 25 May 2018 at 11:59, Anders Wennersten  wrote:
>
>> My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize
>> the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing is
>> slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in our
>> projects.
>>
>> In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of decrease of
>> admins on enwp, and some likewise tendency on dewp. Is this a sign that the
>> "good" powers are losing out to the "bad" ones?
>>
>> I also seen a very passive response to two massPOV editing . One, on 35
>> versions, is related to Hans Asperger, to state he was a nazi doctor
>> (false, even if he was somewhat passive in some cases). Here dewp reacted
>> quickly and after a while enwp, so these articles are OK, but in most of
>> the other 35 this false info lies unchanged. Also I react to the effort
>> from GazProm promoting their  propaganda article /Football for Friendship /
>> in up to 80 version, and where almost noone has neutralized it.
>>
>> Are  we  slowly losing the battle against the "evil" forces? And if so, is
>> then our new strategy (being good in itself) and the plan to implement  it
>> all too naive? For example I like very much the ambition to help out on
>> areas in the world where Wikipedia etc is not established, but would it be
>> more correct to put effort in regaining control of the very many Wikipedia
>> versions, that is definitely degenerating and we are loosing what has been
>> done on these. (as a test look at "latest changes" on some of the versions
>> with low editing, it is depressing to see that there often are more vandal
>> editing, not being undone, then proper new material)
>>
>> Would it be most appropriate if we all in a 2-3 years effort concentrated
>> on getting (back) control on our material in our projects, before we start
>> efforts in implementing the strategy we have agreed upon. Perhaps a number
>> of paid admins, vandal/pov fighters, about as many as there are stewards
>> today, would be necessary not to lose out.
>>
>> Anders
>>
>>
>>
>> //
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You compare two things that are not related and where there is a conflict
of interest. As it is, we are severely lacking in information in many of
our Wikipedias. Given that not even percent of the humans in Wikidata is
from Africa, the #AfricaGap is bigger than the #GenderGap (no percent vs
16/17% of humans). This gets us into issues about English Wikipedia
administration versus what it covers and how we can get people to write
about for instance Africa and Gender.

Your interest of keeping up with vandalism and the fight against massive
POV pushing, paid editing is something else altogether. I have no interest
at all in your struggles, I will not volunteer to become an admin. I find
that admins do and what I would expect from them is incompatible with what
I want to spend time on. The aggression in many conversations I have come
across makes me cringe.

When you want to improve issues that have to do with vandalism, POV, there
are possibilities in tooling. One partial solution that I have in mind
would improve the quality in articles, makes it obvious where there is a
difference allowing for more focus. The point/problem is that this will not
be specific to any one Wikipedia, it will show differences between projects
and consequently it is not specifically a tool with a focus on POV pushing.
With sufficient UI attention it may get more of the focus you are seeking.

As you seek control of our data, quality is king, it is what we should
build upon. When you seek to exclude the interest of others over your own,
I would hate to see you succeed.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 25 May 2018 at 11:59, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize
> the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing is
> slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in our
> projects.
>
> In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of decrease of
> admins on enwp, and some likewise tendency on dewp. Is this a sign that the
> "good" powers are losing out to the "bad" ones?
>
> I also seen a very passive response to two massPOV editing . One, on 35
> versions, is related to Hans Asperger, to state he was a nazi doctor
> (false, even if he was somewhat passive in some cases). Here dewp reacted
> quickly and after a while enwp, so these articles are OK, but in most of
> the other 35 this false info lies unchanged. Also I react to the effort
> from GazProm promoting their  propaganda article /Football for Friendship /
> in up to 80 version, and where almost noone has neutralized it.
>
> Are  we  slowly losing the battle against the "evil" forces? And if so, is
> then our new strategy (being good in itself) and the plan to implement  it
> all too naive? For example I like very much the ambition to help out on
> areas in the world where Wikipedia etc is not established, but would it be
> more correct to put effort in regaining control of the very many Wikipedia
> versions, that is definitely degenerating and we are loosing what has been
> done on these. (as a test look at "latest changes" on some of the versions
> with low editing, it is depressing to see that there often are more vandal
> editing, not being undone, then proper new material)
>
> Would it be most appropriate if we all in a 2-3 years effort concentrated
> on getting (back) control on our material in our projects, before we start
> efforts in implementing the strategy we have agreed upon. Perhaps a number
> of paid admins, vandal/pov fighters, about as many as there are stewards
> today, would be necessary not to lose out.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> //
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Adam Wight]

Thank you for this provocation, I share your concern.  As a reader, it's
disappointing to find material that looks like a press release, and
intimidating to flag or edit without doing research into the editing
history and editors involved.  A quick, "back of the envelope" calculation
I did recently shows an alarming level of paid editing, with 1,017 "Paid"
status disclosures among en.wikipedia editors' user pages [1], which would
amount to 1.4% of active editors if these numbers were directly
comparable.  This doesn't begin to account for any of the undisclosed paid
editing that must be happening.

As a technical contributor, I can offer two concrete initiatives which
might be helpful.  Neither is a quick fix, but they offer spaces of
resistance that we can build upon.

* The JADE project [2] will create a structured namespace for patrolling,
and a talk namespace for coordinating work.  You can think of it as an
enhancement to the patrolled edit flag, where patrollers can provide their
judgment in a format roughly equivalent to ORES predictions.  We'll
eventually use these judgments to improve our training for the ORES AIs,
and our hope is that JADE will be integrated into tools like Huggle, to
make communication between patrollers more explicit.  JADE is available for
experimentation on the Beta cluster [3], and we can move to the production
wikis after we get some feedback from experienced editors, maybe after the
upcoming Wikimania.

* We've also started work on an AI model to detect paid promotional
editing, based on the overly optimistic puffery that's commonly
deployed.[4]  I'm excited about this approach, and once it's active we'll
be able to make good estimates of the scale of the problem, the number of
editors and sockpuppets failing to disclose their conflicts of interest,
and the financial resources pouring in.  I imagine this would give us a
better idea of what next steps to take.

Cheers,
Adam
Wikimedia Scoring Platform Team
[[mw:User:Adamw]]

[1]
https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=Paid
[2] https://mediawiki.org/wiki/JADE
[3] For example, https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/JADE:Diff/376901
[4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120170


On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:00 PM Anders Wennersten 
wrote:

> My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize
> the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing
> is slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in
> our projects.
>
> In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of decrease of
> admins on enwp, and some likewise tendency on dewp. Is this a sign that
> the "good" powers are losing out to the "bad" ones?
>
> I also seen a very passive response to two massPOV editing . One, on 35
> versions, is related to Hans Asperger, to state he was a nazi doctor
> (false, even if he was somewhat passive in some cases). Here dewp
> reacted quickly and after a while enwp, so these articles are OK, but in
> most of the other 35 this false info lies unchanged. Also I react to the
> effort from GazProm promoting their  propaganda article /Football for
> Friendship / in up to 80 version, and where almost noone has neutralized
> it.
>
> Are  we  slowly losing the battle against the "evil" forces? And if so,
> is then our new strategy (being good in itself) and the plan to
> implement  it all too naive? For example I like very much the ambition
> to help out on areas in the world where Wikipedia etc is not
> established, but would it be more correct to put effort in regaining
> control of the very many Wikipedia versions, that is definitely
> degenerating and we are loosing what has been done on these. (as a test
> look at "latest changes" on some of the versions with low editing, it is
> depressing to see that there often are more vandal editing, not being
> undone, then proper new material)
>
> Would it be most appropriate if we all in a 2-3 years effort
> concentrated on getting (back) control on our material in our projects,
> before we start efforts in implementing the strategy we have agreed
> upon. Perhaps a number of paid admins, vandal/pov fighters, about as
> many as there are stewards today, would be necessary not to lose out.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> //
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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/listi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Anders,

I hear your worries. Indeed it seems that resisting the push is taking more
effort than what the community can take under the current circumstances, or
at least it doesn't look sustainable (the RfA chart shown in the last
Signpost [1] is really clear on that regard).

However, by providing different circumstances it could be feasible to keep
the ground or even regain it. It seems to be the case that since people are
editing in their free time, they do not have time for themselves to recover
from the attrition and eventually they give up, or find something more
fulfilling to do. In my case it has been like that. I started as Wikipedia
editor, but over the years I have been changing roles, and now I do not
have so much contact with Wikipedia as I used to have in the past.

You mentioned that paid roles would be helpful. I am concerned about how
this would be implemented. If you were thinking about the classical
employer-employee relationship, I am totally against it. The reason is that
there is so much effort wasted tracking and keeping people accountable,
that in the end the only thing keeping the relationship alive is money and
statistics, and I feel that is not the basis for a healthy relationship for
a Wikimedia *volunteer* (I highlight that because I feel that the will to
cooperate in our mission should have precedence over the will to make a
profit out of it).

It is also realistic to think that if I want a volunteer dedicated 100% to
the mission, and I want to keep them on the project for their whole life,
then I will have to free him somehow from the duties of making a living.
Instead of paid roles, I would be more open to discussing the creation of a
common fund that volunteers could administer themselves to cover their
living expenses, partially or fully, depending on the resources.

In my opinion there should be options for everyone. Options for donating
free time without expecting anything in exchange (already exists), options
to be an employee for when it is difficult to find talent within the
community (already exists), and options to allow the community to take care
of the needs of volunteers (does not exist, grants are not given to a
person, but to a project).

I'm looking forward to hearing more views on the topic.

Regards,
Micru

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-05-24/Op-ed

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Anders Wennersten <
m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote:

> My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize
> the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing is
> slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in our
> projects.
>
> In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of decrease of
> admins on enwp, and some likewise tendency on dewp. Is this a sign that the
> "good" powers are losing out to the "bad" ones?
>
> I also seen a very passive response to two massPOV editing . One, on 35
> versions, is related to Hans Asperger, to state he was a nazi doctor
> (false, even if he was somewhat passive in some cases). Here dewp reacted
> quickly and after a while enwp, so these articles are OK, but in most of
> the other 35 this false info lies unchanged. Also I react to the effort
> from GazProm promoting their  propaganda article /Football for Friendship /
> in up to 80 version, and where almost noone has neutralized it.
>
> Are  we  slowly losing the battle against the "evil" forces? And if so, is
> then our new strategy (being good in itself) and the plan to implement  it
> all too naive? For example I like very much the ambition to help out on
> areas in the world where Wikipedia etc is not established, but would it be
> more correct to put effort in regaining control of the very many Wikipedia
> versions, that is definitely degenerating and we are loosing what has been
> done on these. (as a test look at "latest changes" on some of the versions
> with low editing, it is depressing to see that there often are more vandal
> editing, not being undone, then proper new material)
>
> Would it be most appropriate if we all in a 2-3 years effort concentrated
> on getting (back) control on our material in our projects, before we start
> efforts in implementing the strategy we have agreed upon. Perhaps a number
> of paid admins, vandal/pov fighters, about as many as there are stewards
> today, would be necessary not to lose out.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> //
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/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,
> 




-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta

[Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Anders Wennersten]

My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize 
the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing 
is slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in 
our projects.


In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of decrease of 
admins on enwp, and some likewise tendency on dewp. Is this a sign that 
the "good" powers are losing out to the "bad" ones?


I also seen a very passive response to two massPOV editing . One, on 35 
versions, is related to Hans Asperger, to state he was a nazi doctor 
(false, even if he was somewhat passive in some cases). Here dewp 
reacted quickly and after a while enwp, so these articles are OK, but in 
most of the other 35 this false info lies unchanged. Also I react to the 
effort from GazProm promoting their  propaganda article /Football for 
Friendship / in up to 80 version, and where almost noone has neutralized it.


Are  we  slowly losing the battle against the "evil" forces? And if so, 
is then our new strategy (being good in itself) and the plan to 
implement  it all too naive? For example I like very much the ambition 
to help out on areas in the world where Wikipedia etc is not 
established, but would it be more correct to put effort in regaining 
control of the very many Wikipedia versions, that is definitely 
degenerating and we are loosing what has been done on these. (as a test 
look at "latest changes" on some of the versions with low editing, it is 
depressing to see that there often are more vandal editing, not being 
undone, then proper new material)


Would it be most appropriate if we all in a 2-3 years effort 
concentrated on getting (back) control on our material in our projects, 
before we start efforts in implementing the strategy we have agreed 
upon. Perhaps a number of paid admins, vandal/pov fighters, about as 
many as there are stewards today, would be necessary not to lose out.


Anders



//

___
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,