The idea that the economic and physiological health of the editor pool isn't a large determinant of the proportion choosing to edit, if not the largest that we may have any meaningful control over after everything we've tried so far, simply does not seem defensible. What does it mean to empower a potential editor with the ability to share knowledge, if their circumstances leave them without the inclination to do so? That is the difference between empowering and merely enabling, is it not? A slightly more complete encyclopedia with society crumbling around it is not an improvement over a less complete encyclopedia in symbiosis with a flourishing society. On Nov 27, 2013 6:14 PM, "L.Gelauff" lgelauff@gmail.com wrote:
Dear James,
You keep amazing me with the topics you bring up on this list. It might be just that I'm utterly naive and not understanding what Wikimedia is all about, but I seriously have a hard time seeing a connection at all with our mission - let alone how any serious impact could be achieved or how this could become a priority.
While we all have political opinions on 'the big issues' (well, most of us) I think that almost everyone agrees that Wikimedia should refrain from taking a stand on issues not directly related with its mission. Even on issues like net neutrality, the use of free software in government or software patents there is a serious concern with many of our volunteers that we should not get involved with those discussions.
So please, lets focus on what we're good at and where we can have a real impact. That is hard enough on itself. I would appreciate it if you could ask yourself more critically whether something you post would really support our mission, before you post it. While there are no stupid questions, some restraint can help in being taken seriously rather than being considered trolling.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2013/11/27 James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
I agree an international approach would be best, but at the same time, [1] and [2] seriously limit the number and capabilities of would-be, active, and inactive volunteer editors.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/among-american-workers-poll-f...
[2] http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/america-stingiest-rich-country...
Is it even possible to take a truly international approach to the underlying issue? I hope so, but I fear that any such approach will be more Kumbaya than active or effective problem solving.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Raul Veede raul.veede@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, none of these. I'm completely satisfied with my job, I like
my
boss a lot and although my pay is not much, I don't believe any spree of activism in U.S. ("Every two weeks, our volunteers telephone targeted
U.S.
government decision makers...blah blah" http://incomeaction.org) would
give
more money for spending to my local government in Estonia. It may come
as a
surprise, but not everybody on Earth is American. Don't get me wrong,
U.S.
is all nice and fluffy, but Wikimedia movement is global. Let's focus on that.
Raul
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:13 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
Which would help volunteer editors more: http://www.fixmyjob.com/ or http://incomeaction.org/ assuming the latter was completed?
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors