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, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
