I am actually fully with Gnangarra here. I am also an unpaid volunteer who invested a lot of hours of my free time into various Wikimedia projects (and mostly getting a lot of shit in reward, but this is not the point now). I did have an experience of disagreements with people who were either paid chapter functionaries, or semi-paid - meaning they would have functionary friends and would be the first in line to get all kind of subsidies such as for example Wikimania travel scholarships. My experience is that I would always at some point back out. In the end of the day, I am pretty much professionally successful, I do not need to prove anything to myself or to anybody else, and at some point I would ask myself - whether this is really the best way to spend my free time by quarreling with people who clearly are not willing to listen to me. On the other hand, they were paid, and they were defending their point of view until the end just because of that. As soon as there are not many of them they can be ignored, or, if they become too harmful, they can be dealt with by the community. If we start getting a considerable share of paid contributors, who would be defending their output just because they need it to report for their salary - it will become impossible to work in Wikipedia for independent contributors.
Cheers Yaroslav On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 3:48 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <dacu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards the community > and that is laudable. As you, over the years I have also spent countless > hours in this community, and I do not regret it either, I feel it has been > and it still is a good investment of my time, and my dedication. You, as > me, are able to do all that because we are not financially disadvantaged. > You are not in need of any donation, you can do what you are doing without > support and that is great. However that you do not need those resources > does not mean that other people might not need them. > > Every volunteer can work in this community as long as their material needs > are covered. If they cannot support themselves, we leave them to their own > devices. That is totally opposite to cultivating a sense of community. In > that regard I do not consider my comment disingenuous, but a reflection of > what is common practice now. > In my view if the community has resources, and a member of the community > (more specifically, a dedicated member) needs them, then the community also > should be generous with them, so that they don't have to leave. > > When I imagine what would be my ideal case scenario, I would also avoid > giving disadvantaged volunteers money, I would give them food and a place > to stay instead, but since that is even harder to materialize (at least at > this point of time given the geographic dispersion and lack of real > estate), I feel that donating resources to volunteers (that in turn have > been donated, remember that) is a good idea to further the sense of > community. > > I'm confused by your comment, can you please explain what makes you think > that by donating to volunteers "they stop being volunteers in that aspect > of what they do"? > > Regards, > Micru > _______________________________________________ > 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>
