Hi Bence,
I think that this recommendation is ambigous. There is a specific sentence:
"We need to pay or otherwise compensate people to participate"
which can be opened to any interpretation.
I think that this recommendation is quite complicated to be accepted by
the community because it associates the diversity to the privileges and
would justify the paid activities on this basis. Wikimedia projects and
Wikimedia structure has been based always on volunteering time, as soon
it will be open to paid activities, the sense of participation will be
distorted.
Basically, if we would explain to the man of street, why the community
should continue to contribute on volunteering basis if some activities
are paid? The reason that there are unprivileged members is weak in my
opinion.
This is a distortion itself.
On 25/08/2019 12:09, Bence Damokos wrote:
The recommendation you link to was about ensuring diversity on decision
making committees, and has this part “We are currently not sure about ‘paid
editing’, and leaning towards not supporting that. ”.
I think it would help the discussion if we did not distort the content of
the recommendations, especially as there may be people who read and engage
with this list who have not had time to study the recommendations (or
indeed the Fram saga cited a number of times earlier).
Best regards,
Bence
Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> (időpont: 2019. aug. 25., V, 11:44) ezt
írta:
Well then, why aren't you listening?
We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid
editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get
paid edit requests removed from sites like Upwork, since they will not
allow requests that violate another site's terms of service. But we've been
completely unable to get WMF to do something unequivocal like that, so we
get left to deal with the spam and crapvertising. Wikipedia admins get to
deal with the fallout.
In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow
paid editing, but have WMF do the paying. That is the direct, exact
opposite of what we've been asking for! No paid editing, and certainly no
paid editing from WMF!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Resource_Allocation/Recommendations/C
Why on Earth are we getting this garbage from WMF "working groups"? Do they
know nothing at all about how the projects work, or do they not care and
are trying to override them?
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that
a
majority of our communities is not interested in administration,
organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in
the
discussion).
5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to
group.
best,
dj
_______________________________________________
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>
--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
_______________________________________________
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>
