Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

Den 2016-03-01 kl. 11:01, skrev David Emrany: The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies of the movement are being created daily. We all live in different realities, so please be careful to indicate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

On 2016-03-01 11:01, David Emrany wrote: " .. WIKIMEDIA pornographers who are masquerading as champions of free speech and free internet to promote their obscenities and lies in India ... TO IMMEDIATELY PROHIBIT ANY FREE INTERNET ACCESS OVER MOBILE DEVICES .. " [2] [1]

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

David, When I refer to the community I assume already that it has an intrinsic imperfect representation and unclear boundaries, as it is characteristic to open systems. Given these blurry boundaries, at what point of the society does the asylum begin or end? It is not enough with just "cleaning

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

Dear David I respectfully disagree. My point is that the "community" you refer to is not a representative community at all. for eg. voices from Asia and Africa are not properly represented here. The community is incapable of policing itself because (to quote a prominent WP criticism site) "the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

Hi David, you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators". Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

om > > Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:30 +0100 > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization > > > > I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF > > should be a high-tech organizat

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

Hi David, It would be even nicer if we have more editors editing voluntarily instead of driving them away. In the present scenario a University of Minnesota report by Aaron Halfaker says "The declining number of editors is not due to the site's inability to keep longtime editors contributing.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

James, I think it is very nice to put measures against paid editing, but it would be nicer to put measures to get editors more free time to edit voluntarily... There are not that many suggestions on how to do it, so it could be that it cannot be done. Cheers, Micru On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:14

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying to address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind Elance and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have been a little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:03 PM, David Emrany wrote: > Hi Brion > > When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you > proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia > > Have we forgotten so soon the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

On Feb 28, 2016 7:23 PM, "David Emrany" wrote: > > Hi Brion > > When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you > proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ? Never heard of it, so can't comment. -- brion >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

Hi Brion When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia Have we forgotten so soon the adverse media publicity about these stealth PR campaigns "Once Wikipedia becomes a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Management#References On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: > Two distinct issues, I think: > > 2) about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively: ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

Two distinct issues, I think: 1) about improving community representation in power structures, I think we have to think more about what representation we want and what structures would accomplish it. I have no answers but think we should consider looking beyond WMF alone:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

Brion, so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the WMF as a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about other roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant making. So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Brion Vibber wrote: > David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :) To clarify, we are strongly agreed that constructive support of people to accomplish movement goals is why WMF exists. My message was focused on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

he board unceremoniously. We find out through this that the community (or > chapters) have no real voice on the board under the current set up. Yes. -- brion > > > > From: dacu...@gmail.com <javascript:;> > > Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:30 +0100 > > To: wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :) -- brion On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela wrote: > I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF > should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization > > I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF > should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to > suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission

[Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather and process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is