>... 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 <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> 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 <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> > _______________________________________________ > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
