--- On Thu, 7/1/10, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The basic reason why doing things by staff rather than
volunteers is
wrong is that it decreases one of the motivations for
volunteering--the knowledge that one can participate
significantly in
not just the work but the decisions, and become influential
in
whatever activity within the project that one chooses.
There is a danger in doing things by staff rather than volunteer but I cannot agree that
it is always wrong.
Volunteers do not always emerge. There are real logistical and cultural barriers that
prevent the proven template of projects wholly launched and directed by self-selected
volunteers from succeeding in the global south. Should we just say that it is too bad
that they can't get with our program? Or should we experiment with another template
that might make those wikis succeed? I don't think that using staff there to be a bad
idea.
I don't think staff replacing what volunteers are doing to be a big problem with WMF.
Mostly they seem to be doing things that volunteers are *not* doing.
I do understand your point about volunteers needing to be influential and empowered in
order for the model to work. But frankly I think your concern is based on an assumption
that the WMF is more influential than it really is. I don’t think that WMF’s failure to
engage better with volunteers is harmful to the motivation of the volunteers, but rather
it is harmful to the WMF. If the WMF is often an outside party to the volunteers for all
practical purposes, at least is an outside party well aligned with goals of the
volunteers. And if that ever fails to be true it is not the volunteers that I think would
be driven away.
Birgitte SB