[Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

David Cuenca Tudela
Hey Yaroslav, thanks for sharing your view. I find very interesting what
you mention, and if you have experienced yourself it must be a real effect
on people. Five years ago, when I was awarded an IEG grant, I didn't feel
the same effect on me. In fact it was quite the opposite, I felt under
pressure to be worthy of it, and I made an additional effort to make sure
that all people I talked to felt listened. This is not easy, because it
requires the will to understand what the other person is trying to say, and
admit that they have a point.
Of course this is just limited to my experience, but if there was a
requirement to commit to listen empathically before receiving any kind of
fund, perhaps the effect of feeling "superior" or "entitled" could be
neutered.

One of the things that I appreciate most about our movement is the capacity
to look deeply into potential pitfalls and to put safeguards against them.
I see this here too. That something seems risky doesn't mean that it
shouldn't be done, but it is necessary to discuss it thoroughly and see
under which conditions it would be safe(r). And still, the experience is
invaluable and can show whether the fears were justified or not, and from
there, iterate and improve.

Now that I think about it, wouldn't it be wonderful if the incentive of the
donation could be used as a way to ensure that the recipients are commited
to train themselves in a set of values? For instance you mentioned one that
is extremely important, the ability to listen, to make space for what the
other person is saying, and to incorporate their view into the
conversation. I think that there are more values that would be very welcome
in our community, like easing the pressure on one another, calming
arguments instead of fueling them, and in general ensuring that civility
and harmony have priority above anything else.
There must have been initiatives before to introduce these kind of values,
but I am unable to find them. Any pointer would be appreciated.

You also mentioned "paid contributors, who would be defending their output
just because they need it to report for their salary". As said before, I do
not envision donations to volunteers as a "salary", but more as a token of
appreciation from the community, while keeping the independence to act
according to their will. I do not know which kind of mechanisms should be
put in place for the community to make sure that only the right people
would receive this kind of gratitude, however I doubt that they would be
"reporting for their salary" (another kind of slavery), but instead
interacting with the community normally and making sure that they behave
excellently.

Thank you for digging deeper into this topic.

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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

Pine W
In reply to this post by Anders Wennersten-2
Based on the limited information that I have, it seems to me that there are already numerous contribtors who are paid to engage in promotional activity on Wikipedia, whether declared or undeclared, and the community does not have adequate human resources to patrol and investigate all of these. I expect that the problem will continue to get worse unless WMF gets more energetic about investigating TOS violations involving undeclared COI and WMF becomes predictable about extracting financial penalties that are severe enough to deter most of the undeclared COI contributors. Unfortunately, as far as I know, WMF has been largely passive about the problem of undeclared COI and has not announced any plans to become more aggressive.
As nice as it would be if everyone could afford and was willing to work for free, this is not the case. If it was then we could safely eliminate the salaries of the entire WMF staff. However, I think that financial support makes sense for some paid staff to handle activities like network operations, interface design, legal defense, and responses to safety problems.
Some types of Wikimedia activities are better suited to volunteer work than others. I encourage volunteers to avoid burning themselves out; there are some activities that I did in the past that I would not do again as a volunteer. Better to be an occasional and long-term contributor than to get burned out.
I have some ideas about how to pay people to do certain types of work that, so far, WMF has not funded. Unfortunately these are merely ideas and not likely to become reality in the short term. Perhaps later this year or in the next few years I will have specific proposals with reasonable chances for sustainable success.
I share the concern that paid participants in the Wikiverse, like staff of WMF and affiliates, WMF grantees, and potentially like the paid contributors that I have in mind, may become so numerous that they can drown out the consensus of the volunteers. Unfortunately I do not have easy solutions for this issue. We could prohibit all paid contributors from participating inĀ  RFCs and related decision processes, but we would be largely relying on people to self-disclose their paid status, which seems unlikely to be adequate.
Perhaps the issues that we are discussing in this conversation should be included in the Structures and Systems prong of the WMF strategy process. I am pinging Nicole to ask for her input about that idea. However, keep in mind that the strategy process is financially sponsored by WMF, and it is not free of potential conflicts with the interests of WMF.
I wish that I could be more optimistic. These are difficult topics.
Regards,
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
null
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

David Cuenca Tudela
Pine,
It is nice of you that you thought about including these topics in the WMF
strategy process, which I assume it is an ongoing process and not a one-off
event. However as the 2017 cycle ended, I am unable to find the way to
incorporate new ideas into the process. I would have expected to find a
discussion page where new input can be taken into consideration, but it
might not be the case.

I consider that the importance of admin decline in Wikipedias is really
high, and at the same time I understand why you or anybody else would not
like to do some tasks as volunteer. For this reason, while I do not like
the idea of employees doing project activities, I feel that by creating a
scheme where volunteers become empowered/liberated from work through direct
donations could be part of a practical way of addressing the issue. I'm
very sensitive to potential pitfalls and for this reason I consider that
the feedback given by Yaroslav is extremely important, and that any
donation to volunteers should happen only if they are committed to a
personal transformation, that involves developing the capacity for
listening, humility, and other values important for the project. I think
this is only part of the story so far, and at this point the only thing I
can do in my capacity as volunteer is to steward the conversation, and
bring it to an increasing number of people as the understanding on this
topic increases.

These are difficult topics indeed, but only by dealing with them we can
grow as a movement.

Regards,
Micru
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Micru )

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Based on the limited information that I have, it seems to me that there
> are already numerous contribtors who are paid to engage in promotional
> activity on Wikipedia, whether declared or undeclared, and the community
> does not have adequate human resources to patrol and investigate all of
> these. I expect that the problem will continue to get worse unless WMF gets
> more energetic about investigating TOS violations involving undeclared COI
> and WMF becomes predictable about extracting financial penalties that are
> severe enough to deter most of the undeclared COI contributors.
> Unfortunately, as far as I know, WMF has been largely passive about the
> problem of undeclared COI and has not announced any plans to become more
> aggressive.
> As nice as it would be if everyone could afford and was willing to work
> for free, this is not the case. If it was then we could safely eliminate
> the salaries of the entire WMF staff. However, I think that financial
> support makes sense for some paid staff to handle activities like network
> operations, interface design, legal defense, and responses to safety
> problems.
> Some types of Wikimedia activities are better suited to volunteer work
> than others. I encourage volunteers to avoid burning themselves out; there
> are some activities that I did in the past that I would not do again as a
> volunteer. Better to be an occasional and long-term contributor than to get
> burned out.
> I have some ideas about how to pay people to do certain types of work
> that, so far, WMF has not funded. Unfortunately these are merely ideas and
> not likely to become reality in the short term. Perhaps later this year or
> in the next few years I will have specific proposals with reasonable
> chances for sustainable success.
> I share the concern that paid participants in the Wikiverse, like staff of
> WMF and affiliates, WMF grantees, and potentially like the paid
> contributors that I have in mind, may become so numerous that they can
> drown out the consensus of the volunteers. Unfortunately I do not have easy
> solutions for this issue. We could prohibit all paid contributors from
> participating in  RFCs and related decision processes, but we would be
> largely relying on people to self-disclose their paid status, which seems
> unlikely to be adequate.
> Perhaps the issues that we are discussing in this conversation should be
> included in the Structures and Systems prong of the WMF strategy process. I
> am pinging Nicole to ask for her input about that idea. However, keep in
> mind that the strategy process is financially sponsored by WMF, and it is
> not free of potential conflicts with the interests of WMF.
> I wish that I could be more optimistic. These are difficult topics.
> Regards,
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> null
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

Pine W
Hi Micru,

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:36 AM, David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Pine,
> It is nice of you that you thought about including these topics in the WMF
> strategy process, which I assume it is an ongoing process and not a one-off
> event. However as the 2017 cycle ended, I am unable to find the way to
> incorporate new ideas into the process. I would have expected to find a
> discussion page where new input can be taken into consideration, but it
> might not be the case.
>
>
This sounds like another good question for Nicole.



> I consider that the importance of admin decline in Wikipedias is really
> high, and at the same time I understand why you or anybody else would not
> like to do some tasks as volunteer. For this reason, while I do not like
> the idea of employees doing project activities, I feel that by creating a
> scheme where volunteers become empowered/liberated from work through direct
> donations could be part of a practical way of addressing the issue. I'm
> very sensitive to potential pitfalls and for this reason I consider that
> the feedback given by Yaroslav is extremely important, and that any
> donation to volunteers should happen only if they are committed to a
> personal transformation, that involves developing the capacity for
> listening, humility, and other values important for the project. I think
> this is only part of the story so far, and at this point the only thing I
> can do in my capacity as volunteer is to steward the conversation, and
> bring it to an increasing number of people as the understanding on this
> topic increases.
>
>

Thank you for your interest in this issue. I'll make a few further points.

* There are a number of people who are working on facilitating and
improving the experience for new editors. There are existing projects like
the English Wikipedia Teahouse and various help channels. During the
2018-2019 fiscal year, my understanding is that WMF intends to reconstitute
the "Growth Team" to attempt to improve the experience of new editors. Mark
Miller is the project manager for this, and I am pinging him here in case
he would like to comment. Meanwhile, I am working on the project that I
previously called LearnWiki
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Motivational_and_educational_video_to_introduce_Wikimedia>,
which I plan to re-brand later this year for trademark reasons (eventually
I will publish a new name), and in my continuation of the project I am
making modifications to the project's original design. I hope that both
Mark and I will be able to demonstrate benefits from our work in 2018-2019.

* I am very interested in non-WMF funding for affiliate and community
projects. As you probably have noticed, I can be outspoken when I have
concerns about WMF, and I am worried that if I become financially dependent
on WMF then I would be much less willing to express my views out of fear
that WMF would eliminate my funding. So, while I want to work on my project
which I think would support the community's vision and goals, I would
prefer to obtain non-WMF funding. I hope that non-WMF funding could also be
available to other community members and affiliates to work on activities
which WMF has not funded, such as on-wiki administrative work for which
there is significant demand but too little volunteer capacity. I can't make
any promises regarding the availability of non-WMF funding for myself or
others, but I am having off-wiki conversations about these issues and I
hope to be able to report some success within a few years. In the meantime,
I think that we are stuck with the status quo, although I am hopeful that
in the context of the strategy process that WMF will be supportive of the
idea of diversifying funding sources for the community beyond WMF. I am
trying go avoid *competing* with WMF for funding, which I think would be
viewed negatively by WMF, and instead look for outside sources which WMF
has not tapped for funding. I would like to cooperate with WMF where
possible, and so I would prefer that my fundraising efforts be "parallel
with" rather than "in competition with" WMF efforts.

If you or others would be interested, perhaps we could have a
video-conference meeting at some point regarding ideas for non-WMF funding
sources.

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )





> These are difficult topics indeed, but only by dealing with them we can
> grow as a movement.
>
> Regards,
> Micru
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Micru )
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Based on the limited information that I have, it seems to me that there
> > are already numerous contribtors who are paid to engage in promotional
> > activity on Wikipedia, whether declared or undeclared, and the community
> > does not have adequate human resources to patrol and investigate all of
> > these. I expect that the problem will continue to get worse unless WMF
> gets
> > more energetic about investigating TOS violations involving undeclared
> COI
> > and WMF becomes predictable about extracting financial penalties that are
> > severe enough to deter most of the undeclared COI contributors.
> > Unfortunately, as far as I know, WMF has been largely passive about the
> > problem of undeclared COI and has not announced any plans to become more
> > aggressive.
> > As nice as it would be if everyone could afford and was willing to work
> > for free, this is not the case. If it was then we could safely eliminate
> > the salaries of the entire WMF staff. However, I think that financial
> > support makes sense for some paid staff to handle activities like network
> > operations, interface design, legal defense, and responses to safety
> > problems.
> > Some types of Wikimedia activities are better suited to volunteer work
> > than others. I encourage volunteers to avoid burning themselves out;
> there
> > are some activities that I did in the past that I would not do again as a
> > volunteer. Better to be an occasional and long-term contributor than to
> get
> > burned out.
> > I have some ideas about how to pay people to do certain types of work
> > that, so far, WMF has not funded. Unfortunately these are merely ideas
> and
> > not likely to become reality in the short term. Perhaps later this year
> or
> > in the next few years I will have specific proposals with reasonable
> > chances for sustainable success.
> > I share the concern that paid participants in the Wikiverse, like staff
> of
> > WMF and affiliates, WMF grantees, and potentially like the paid
> > contributors that I have in mind, may become so numerous that they can
> > drown out the consensus of the volunteers. Unfortunately I do not have
> easy
> > solutions for this issue. We could prohibit all paid contributors from
> > participating in  RFCs and related decision processes, but we would be
> > largely relying on people to self-disclose their paid status, which seems
> > unlikely to be adequate.
> > Perhaps the issues that we are discussing in this conversation should be
> > included in the Structures and Systems prong of the WMF strategy
> process. I
> > am pinging Nicole to ask for her input about that idea. However, keep in
> > mind that the strategy process is financially sponsored by WMF, and it is
> > not free of potential conflicts with the interests of WMF.
> > I wish that I could be more optimistic. These are difficult topics.
> > Regards,
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > null
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

David Cuenca Tudela
Hi Pine,

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 4:31 AM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This sounds like another good question for Nicole.

Indeed, but she might be busy or in vacation. If she doesn't get involved
into this conversation in the next days I will open a new thread about it.

> * There are a number of people who are working on facilitating and
> improving the experience for new editors.

That is very nice, and it should happen (including the project you are
working on which seems very useful). Additionally to the experience of new
editors, one should consider the experience of old editors, because that
also reflects on the health of the community and the work atmosphere
created by them, which in the end also affects new editors. It's not the
same to work in an environment that is hostile and unfriendly, that in an
environment where people listen to each other, and try to find common
ground. As said before (I think), I believe this transformation has to
happen from initiative of the volunteers themselves. The WMF can help with
tools, employees, and resources if they are willing to, but if the
volunteers do not commit to change, nothing will be achieved.

> * I am very interested in non-WMF funding for affiliate and community
> projects.

You indeed make a good point about non-WMF funding. It's true that you are
very outspoken and I value what you do for the spirit of the community. I
think that is a value we should nurture in everybody, specially in
volunteers who accept donations, and that there should be a way for the
donations to flow directly to volunteers or to projects without passing
through the hands of the WMF. I do not know what would be the best approach
to materialize this in practice, either by using an external platform (like
Patreon) or building our own. However, it should be taken into account that
at the moment the main source of exposure, which are donation banners to
collect community money, are administered by the WMF, so that limits the
capacity to find donors for individuals or small organizations.

> If you or others would be interested, perhaps we could have a
> video-conference meeting at some point regarding ideas for non-WMF funding
> sources.

Excellent idea! I'll send you a private message with my availability/time
zone and when we find a suitable moment, maybe we could invite others to
join too. (If someone feels that they need to be in this conversation,
please do express your interest to me and I will take your request into
consideration when selecting a date)

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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

David Cuenca Tudela
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:
> Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop?

First of all I must say that what I might say as an answer to those
questions reflects my understanding of this topic now, which is different
than when the conversation started, and that it will be different when more
questions like these arise, or when more input is given, or when what I say
is being challenged.

As I see it now, specially after the input by Pine, the system should not
rely on donations from the WMF only. Volunteers should have their own
individual way to develop a relationship with their donors in order to feel
free. The WMF might be part of this, either directly supporting individual
volunteers, or by supporting an affiliate that would administer funds on
behalf of the WMF and other major donors.

You ask "where does it stop?" and my interpretation is that the capacity
both to enable volunteers to accept donations, and to donors to support
them should be built organically over time. It is unrealistic to think that
we can suddenly open the system for everyone, it has to be built
progressively. Remember also that, from the input by Yaroslav, it is
important that volunteers are enabled to accept donations with the
condition that they develop personal faculties, like the ability to listen,
humbleness, and general understanding of the situation of the community and
their own. This takes time, and requires a kind of social structure that
needs to be built from scratch to facilitate the goal.

Regarding if it is only for admins or not, well, my understanding at the
moment is that there are tasks that require considerable personal energy
and dedication that is in short supply. There are also tasks that fulfill a
structural function in the community, and that are not valued as such. I
feel that for the first stage of this initiative volunteers should
self-assess how their work affects other members of the "working
community", that is the community of editors who perform tasks in the
projects. Be it in direct tasks like maintenance, or social tasks like
mediation. I consider that in general admins satisfy these criteria, but of
course, as always, there are many grey zones that should be considered
carefully on a case by case basis. If this initiative would progress and
would be successful, I imagine that volunteers that work for the broader
reading/data consuming community should also be considered eventually.
However, as said, I would prefer to start small to build understanding,
capacity, and empowerment where it has the biggest impact first, and expand
as conditions allow.

> is it only for English Wikipedia and if so why?

In my opinion, no. I consider myself a global volunteer of the Wikimedia
movement and as such I care for all volunteers in every project. I consider
that every Wikimedian deserves my attention, and my work to enable them to
be successful in whatever project they are working on (one of the reasons
why these days I am more involved in Wikidata). The reality is, however,
that en-wiki attracts the most attention from readers/donors because it has
established itself as a common ground for the whole planet. We could argue
if this is healthy or not, but it is the reality right now and we should
live with it while we find more inclusive approaches. Once said that, I do
consider that en-wiki should be given the attention that it deserves, while
considering smaller projects that also need this kind of approach.

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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

Anders Wennersten-2
I fully support Micrus summary and comments, I see it them very up to
the point I raised in my first input in this thread.

And while I see this as a general problem for all versions/projects, I
can see that a start on enwp would make sense. It has the biggest number
of edits but also being the one where the "gains" to enter skewed info
is very much the highest, making the pressure on admins when
neutralizing being the toughest.

For the model now being discussed I see it as comparable to "Wikipedian
in Residence", perhaps like "Admins (patrollers) financially supported
by a Community".

Anders





Den 2018-06-01 kl. 10:51, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:

> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>> Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop?
> First of all I must say that what I might say as an answer to those
> questions reflects my understanding of this topic now, which is different
> than when the conversation started, and that it will be different when more
> questions like these arise, or when more input is given, or when what I say
> is being challenged.
>
> As I see it now, specially after the input by Pine, the system should not
> rely on donations from the WMF only. Volunteers should have their own
> individual way to develop a relationship with their donors in order to feel
> free. The WMF might be part of this, either directly supporting individual
> volunteers, or by supporting an affiliate that would administer funds on
> behalf of the WMF and other major donors.
>
> You ask "where does it stop?" and my interpretation is that the capacity
> both to enable volunteers to accept donations, and to donors to support
> them should be built organically over time. It is unrealistic to think that
> we can suddenly open the system for everyone, it has to be built
> progressively. Remember also that, from the input by Yaroslav, it is
> important that volunteers are enabled to accept donations with the
> condition that they develop personal faculties, like the ability to listen,
> humbleness, and general understanding of the situation of the community and
> their own. This takes time, and requires a kind of social structure that
> needs to be built from scratch to facilitate the goal.
>
> Regarding if it is only for admins or not, well, my understanding at the
> moment is that there are tasks that require considerable personal energy
> and dedication that is in short supply. There are also tasks that fulfill a
> structural function in the community, and that are not valued as such. I
> feel that for the first stage of this initiative volunteers should
> self-assess how their work affects other members of the "working
> community", that is the community of editors who perform tasks in the
> projects. Be it in direct tasks like maintenance, or social tasks like
> mediation. I consider that in general admins satisfy these criteria, but of
> course, as always, there are many grey zones that should be considered
> carefully on a case by case basis. If this initiative would progress and
> would be successful, I imagine that volunteers that work for the broader
> reading/data consuming community should also be considered eventually.
> However, as said, I would prefer to start small to build understanding,
> capacity, and empowerment where it has the biggest impact first, and expand
> as conditions allow.
>
>> is it only for English Wikipedia and if so why?
> In my opinion, no. I consider myself a global volunteer of the Wikimedia
> movement and as such I care for all volunteers in every project. I consider
> that every Wikimedian deserves my attention, and my work to enable them to
> be successful in whatever project they are working on (one of the reasons
> why these days I am more involved in Wikidata). The reality is, however,
> that en-wiki attracts the most attention from readers/donors because it has
> established itself as a common ground for the whole planet. We could argue
> if this is healthy or not, but it is the reality right now and we should
> live with it while we find more inclusive approaches. Once said that, I do
> consider that en-wiki should be given the attention that it deserves, while
> considering smaller projects that also need this kind of approach.
>
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

Pine W
I thank my colleagues for this valuable discussion.

Here are a few more thoughts from my end:

* While my efforts for the next few months will focus on new contributors,
the issues with administrative backlogs, COI patrolling and investigations,
and a myriad of other issues which "mid-career" or relatively "senior"
Wikimedians are better suited to address are also on my mind. I hope that
if we can increase the retention of new contributors that some of these
people will remain long enough and become skillful enough to take on some
of the administrative work. I plan to research the effectiveness of my work
with new editors, including measures of the longevity and productivity of
people who use the resources that I develop, and my guess is that Mark
Miller will do the same, so there will likely be reports about the effects
of our (or at least my) work during 2018-2019 that will focus on new
Wikimedians but also look at long-term measures of success.

* WMF is planning to study what it calls "movement organizers" during its
2018-2019 Annual Plan, as a part of its Audiences work
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2018-2019/Audiences#Outcome_1:_Progressive_Onboarding>.
The WMF AP currently says, "The goal of this study is to develop a shared
understanding of and investment in the needs of movement organizers at the
Wikimedia Foundation and in the Wikimedia movement, to ensure that this
strategic audience gets the support it needs to grow the Wikimedia
community. The milestone for this project will be a public report on the
research findings, including movement organizers personas to inform future
work in community outreach and software development. The report will offer
recommendations for further work to help movement organizers to succeed."

* Regarding fundraising for non-WMF financial support of Wikimedians, I
hope to meet with Micru about this subject in July. I imagine that we will
share further updates when we have finished setting up the logistics. From
my perspective, this meeting doesn't need to be confidential, so anyone who
is civil would be welcome to participate. This is a long term project, and
I suggest that we have very moderate expectations for the foreseeable
future.

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Anders Wennersten-2
Enwp may also be the most resistant project to having people paid to do admin work. Has the concept ever been discussed on enwp? If so, when and where, and what was the consensus if any?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Anders Wennersten
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 1:36 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

I fully support Micrus summary and comments, I see it them very up to
the point I raised in my first input in this thread.

And while I see this as a general problem for all versions/projects, I
can see that a start on enwp would make sense. It has the biggest number
of edits but also being the one where the "gains" to enter skewed info
is very much the highest, making the pressure on admins when
neutralizing being the toughest.

For the model now being discussed I see it as comparable to "Wikipedian
in Residence", perhaps like "Admins (patrollers) financially supported
by a Community".

Anders





Den 2018-06-01 kl. 10:51, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:

> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>> Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop?
> First of all I must say that what I might say as an answer to those
> questions reflects my understanding of this topic now, which is different
> than when the conversation started, and that it will be different when more
> questions like these arise, or when more input is given, or when what I say
> is being challenged.
>
> As I see it now, specially after the input by Pine, the system should not
> rely on donations from the WMF only. Volunteers should have their own
> individual way to develop a relationship with their donors in order to feel
> free. The WMF might be part of this, either directly supporting individual
> volunteers, or by supporting an affiliate that would administer funds on
> behalf of the WMF and other major donors.
>
> You ask "where does it stop?" and my interpretation is that the capacity
> both to enable volunteers to accept donations, and to donors to support
> them should be built organically over time. It is unrealistic to think that
> we can suddenly open the system for everyone, it has to be built
> progressively. Remember also that, from the input by Yaroslav, it is
> important that volunteers are enabled to accept donations with the
> condition that they develop personal faculties, like the ability to listen,
> humbleness, and general understanding of the situation of the community and
> their own. This takes time, and requires a kind of social structure that
> needs to be built from scratch to facilitate the goal.
>
> Regarding if it is only for admins or not, well, my understanding at the
> moment is that there are tasks that require considerable personal energy
> and dedication that is in short supply. There are also tasks that fulfill a
> structural function in the community, and that are not valued as such. I
> feel that for the first stage of this initiative volunteers should
> self-assess how their work affects other members of the "working
> community", that is the community of editors who perform tasks in the
> projects. Be it in direct tasks like maintenance, or social tasks like
> mediation. I consider that in general admins satisfy these criteria, but of
> course, as always, there are many grey zones that should be considered
> carefully on a case by case basis. If this initiative would progress and
> would be successful, I imagine that volunteers that work for the broader
> reading/data consuming community should also be considered eventually.
> However, as said, I would prefer to start small to build understanding,
> capacity, and empowerment where it has the biggest impact first, and expand
> as conditions allow.
>
>> is it only for English Wikipedia and if so why?
> In my opinion, no. I consider myself a global volunteer of the Wikimedia
> movement and as such I care for all volunteers in every project. I consider
> that every Wikimedian deserves my attention, and my work to enable them to
> be successful in whatever project they are working on (one of the reasons
> why these days I am more involved in Wikidata). The reality is, however,
> that en-wiki attracts the most attention from readers/donors because it has
> established itself as a common ground for the whole planet. We could argue
> if this is healthy or not, but it is the reality right now and we should
> live with it while we find more inclusive approaches. Once said that, I do
> consider that en-wiki should be given the attention that it deserves, while
> considering smaller projects that also need this kind of approach.
>
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

David Cuenca Tudela
During this weekend I've been preparing a draft for a Global RFC intended
for all admins of all Wikimedia projects. I would appreciate some
input/copy-editing.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Micru/Draft_RFC

And the same for the draft invitation:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Micru/Draft_RFC_message

After comments/modifications I would like to translate both pages to as
many languages as possible.

@Peter: I am aware that some members of every community might be resistant
to this idea, and it is thanks to those people that the idea will keep
evolving to address all concerns that may arise. Let's hope that many
people are interested in participating!

Cheers,
Micru

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Enwp may also be the most resistant project to having people paid to do
> admin work. Has the concept ever been discussed on enwp? If so, when and
> where, and what was the consensus if any?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Anders Wennersten
> Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 1:36 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?
>
> I fully support Micrus summary and comments, I see it them very up to
> the point I raised in my first input in this thread.
>
> And while I see this as a general problem for all versions/projects, I
> can see that a start on enwp would make sense. It has the biggest number
> of edits but also being the one where the "gains" to enter skewed info
> is very much the highest, making the pressure on admins when
> neutralizing being the toughest.
>
> For the model now being discussed I see it as comparable to "Wikipedian
> in Residence", perhaps like "Admins (patrollers) financially supported
> by a Community".
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>
> Den 2018-06-01 kl. 10:51, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >> Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop?
> > First of all I must say that what I might say as an answer to those
> > questions reflects my understanding of this topic now, which is different
> > than when the conversation started, and that it will be different when
> more
> > questions like these arise, or when more input is given, or when what I
> say
> > is being challenged.
> >
> > As I see it now, specially after the input by Pine, the system should not
> > rely on donations from the WMF only. Volunteers should have their own
> > individual way to develop a relationship with their donors in order to
> feel
> > free. The WMF might be part of this, either directly supporting
> individual
> > volunteers, or by supporting an affiliate that would administer funds on
> > behalf of the WMF and other major donors.
> >
> > You ask "where does it stop?" and my interpretation is that the capacity
> > both to enable volunteers to accept donations, and to donors to support
> > them should be built organically over time. It is unrealistic to think
> that
> > we can suddenly open the system for everyone, it has to be built
> > progressively. Remember also that, from the input by Yaroslav, it is
> > important that volunteers are enabled to accept donations with the
> > condition that they develop personal faculties, like the ability to
> listen,
> > humbleness, and general understanding of the situation of the community
> and
> > their own. This takes time, and requires a kind of social structure that
> > needs to be built from scratch to facilitate the goal.
> >
> > Regarding if it is only for admins or not, well, my understanding at the
> > moment is that there are tasks that require considerable personal energy
> > and dedication that is in short supply. There are also tasks that
> fulfill a
> > structural function in the community, and that are not valued as such. I
> > feel that for the first stage of this initiative volunteers should
> > self-assess how their work affects other members of the "working
> > community", that is the community of editors who perform tasks in the
> > projects. Be it in direct tasks like maintenance, or social tasks like
> > mediation. I consider that in general admins satisfy these criteria, but
> of
> > course, as always, there are many grey zones that should be considered
> > carefully on a case by case basis. If this initiative would progress and
> > would be successful, I imagine that volunteers that work for the broader
> > reading/data consuming community should also be considered eventually.
> > However, as said, I would prefer to start small to build understanding,
> > capacity, and empowerment where it has the biggest impact first, and
> expand
> > as conditions allow.
> >
> >> is it only for English Wikipedia and if so why?
> > In my opinion, no. I consider myself a global volunteer of the Wikimedia
> > movement and as such I care for all volunteers in every project. I
> consider
> > that every Wikimedian deserves my attention, and my work to enable them
> to
> > be successful in whatever project they are working on (one of the reasons
> > why these days I am more involved in Wikidata). The reality is, however,
> > that en-wiki attracts the most attention from readers/donors because it
> has
> > established itself as a common ground for the whole planet. We could
> argue
> > if this is healthy or not, but it is the reality right now and we should
> > live with it while we find more inclusive approaches. Once said that, I
> do
> > consider that en-wiki should be given the attention that it deserves,
> while
> > considering smaller projects that also need this kind of approach.
> >
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12