On 4 April 2014 14:05, Richard Symonds <richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: ... > It seems to me that the term 'paid volunteer' is an oxymoron. ...
Yes, it is oxymoronic, many common terms are, though I am open to an alternative form of words. I understand that volunteers who are also employees do not want to be required to always declare they are an employee, it can be the equivalent of wearing a "kick me" sign, but this is a community issue to solve, not an excuse for being opaque. Sue's report into the Belfer case is leading us in this direction if we want to avoid the same embarrassments occurring not just in the WMF but in partnerships or chapter/thorg funded projects. We need to cover the following real and current situations where there is a lack of transparency (here "employee" includes contractors and Wikimedia organizations includes the WMF, chapters, thorgs, proto-chapter programmes, etc.): (A) There are increasing numbers of Wikimedia self-identified volunteers receiving expenses, scholarships, grants or supplied equipment as part of projects funded or part-funded by Wikimedia organizations. The most notable are Wikimedian in Residence projects, however a variety of other projects exist with money or other benefits, such as me being supplied a computer to support some worthwhile Commons mass upload projects. There is currently no consistent global requirement or procedure for volunteers to do any more than declare their interest, which may remain on a special sub-page of one of the Wikimedia projects, chapter wikis, or even privately declared. There are plenty examples of 'paid volunteers' or 'supported volunteers' in this situation, who are advocating for community support for their projects without it being clear or transparent at the time of that advocacy that they are being supported with funding, equipment or contracted payments. There is *absolutely* nothing wrong with content creation advocacy, it is fulfilling the aim of our projects, however if an interest is not transparent and not easy to understand, it is not best practice. (B) Significant numbers of Wikimedia/chapter employees are taking part in community project discussions and !votes using pseudonymous accounts. The resulting summary of community consensus does not take account of the numbers of volunteers who are also employees contributing, even when a !vote has direct implications for the priority or future funding of projects that some of the same employees may benefit from or their employer will benefit from. (C) Full time Wikimedia organization employees are paid Wikimedia volunteer scholarships to go to Wikimedia conferences where they may attend without making it clear they are an employee as they are attending as a volunteer. During the conference they are advocating future projects and community policy changes that will benefit their employer and may create future funded programmes for their employer and potentially themselves as an employee. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
