On 25 Oct 2012, at 08:10, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> Finally, my understanding is that formally the big general governance
> picture is that FDC is meant for the largest proposals from Wikimedia
> entities, while grants are meant for the smaller ones and individuals, so
> the whole discussion
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:26 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>
> Impoverished long term contributors should get a job.
>
That's not really helpful, John. The flaw is what one considers
impoverished. It is very possible to be worth a lot on paper and owe more
than that sum on paper. The entire premi
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:46 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> ...
>
> It is sad that those who are very well off are so quick to exclude the
> possibility of helping impoverished long term contributors.
WMF is not a welfare system. Donors would rightly complain if the
money was used for purposes othe
good point, Keegan! Also, my experience with NGOs in the Soros Foundation
wide network (about 12 Invisible Colleges) was that when gifted students
were given minor stipends, they developed a really demanding attitude. They
kept complaining that their stipends are too low, and that they deserve
more
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton <
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bullshit, every human with money to buy a pc and have access to internet,
> and capable to donate. That's WMF commitment.
>
>
All comments about the choice of partners aside, that is not true. The
Zer
To end poverty, you can not just employ all who are poor, think that its 18%
are managers, how many of the readers are in a precarious situation? This is
one of the reasons I think this is bad focus, increasingly away from a
social vision and increasingly commercial with its unique product, the
Wik
Again, I'm not going to go into detail about how I arrived at the 18%
figure for enwiki admins under the poverty line until the accusation
that I violated the Privacy Policy is withdrawn or my questions about
it are addressed. I am confident that it's accurate within a few
percent. Instead of criti
Agree with Keegan.Not to mention a) the legal ramifications, and b) the PR
ramifications -- how on earth do we maintain a straight face having a
policy on paid editing if we begin paying administrators directly?
Dan Rosenthal
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Oct 24, 20
On Oct 24, 2012 9:46 PM, "Keegan Peterzell" wrote:
>
> When you subsidize volunteers they a) are no longer volunteers and b) the
> same problem with paid editors: losing the power to walk away.
>
> Give me money to administrate Wikipedia and I give up my bit. The freedom
> to pick and choose what
When you subsidize volunteers they a) are no longer volunteers and b) the
same problem with paid editors: losing the power to walk away.
Give me money to administrate Wikipedia and I give up my bit. The freedom
to pick and choose what we do on the website is one of our greatest
strengths.
--
~K
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:06 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> >>... I have reason to believe that about 18% of English Wikipedia
> >> administrators are living below the poverty line, ...
> >
> >... citation desperately needed for this stat.
>
> In February I performed a survey of over 300 inactive Eng
>>... I have reason to believe that about 18% of English Wikipedia
>> administrators are living below the poverty line, ...
>
>... citation desperately needed for this stat.
In February I performed a survey of over 300 inactive English
Wikipedia administrators based on a survey which had been appr
While this is a tangent, it's an interesting one! I don't think anyone
has done great empirical testing on the income demographics of
Wikipedia administrators. It looks like income was not included in the
2011 survey; it does say that 42% of all respondents were unemployed,
but this is likely drive
On 10/24/2012 3:38 PM, James Salsman wrote:
The Funds Dissemination Committee was originally proposed by Sue to
the board with explicit support for both groups and individuals,[1]
but at some point after, all mention of individual editors was
removed.[2]
Could someone please say whether this was
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:38 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> I ask because I have reason to believe that about 18% of English Wikipedia
> administrators are living
> below the poverty line, ...
>
First off I got the impression that specific type of support was never the
intention of the FDC but I do
15 matches
Mail list logo
