Can we stick to advocacy issues on this list please?
On 29 November 2013 12:01, <advocacy_advisors-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
Send Advocacy_Advisors mailing list submissions to
advocacy_advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
advocacy_advisors-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
advocacy_advisors-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Advocacy_Advisors digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Which would help volunteer editors more? (Amgine)
2. Re: Which would help volunteer editors more? (James Salsman)
3. Re: Which would help volunteer editors more? (Raul Veede)
4. Re: Which would help volunteer editors more? (James Salsman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:09:40 +0100
From: Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca>
To: Advocacy Advisory Group for Wikimedia
<advocacy_advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Advocacy Advisors] Which would help volunteer editors
more?
Message-ID: <52974EA4.1060203(a)wikimedians.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 27/11/13 02:24 PM, James Salsman wrote:
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.
Two points of disagreement:
* "that we may have any meaningful control over"
* "does not seem defensible"
I do not believe we have meaningful control over either the economic
or the physiological health of the editor pool. We do note even have
significant relevance to either hugely divergent measure.
Therefore it *is* completely defensible.
Until you can support your statements with objective, repeatable,
observations you should probably avoid castigating others for what is
your beliefs or moral codes. It tends to make people less aligned with
your goals because of their opposition to your methods.
Amgine
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:23:44 +0800
From: James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>
To: Advocacy Advisory Group for WMF LCA
<advocacy_advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Advocacy Advisors] Which would help volunteer editors
more?
Message-ID:
<CAD4=uZYT8zS9xZGNwWQXwMNKEBi6ULcnV_B5eLuwjU=
hiYFCmQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Nov 28, 2013 10:09 PM, "Amgine" <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca> wrote:
I do not believe we have meaningful control over either the economic
or the physiological health of the editor pool.
It has been established by example that the English Wikipedia is able to
influence its readership politically to generate very large scale effective
political change from calls to action. We are also a primary source of
information about health for both physicians and lay people. More directly,
the Foundation now makes decisions about how to compensate editors and
chapters based on the merit of their proposals as submitted, directly.
So, for example, if there were a banner directing people to fixmyjob.comor
heathcare-now.org, there is no reason to believe it would not generate
very
substantial support from readers and have a large actual, and probably
measurable, impact on the extent to which they are truly empowered to
contribute.
Ignoring political realities of the factors that influence the day to day
lives of editors, potential, current, and former, is just that -- willful
ignorance. When the legal team was threatened with the potential
troublesome overhead of removing links due to SOPA/PIPA, the community
supported action to prevent that. When are we going to take action to
support the wider editor community?
Pretending that political and economic factors are somehow out of the scope
of the mission requires imagining that the mission statement says something
about them. It does not. What is the relative impact on a potential editor
who might not be able to include hyperlinks to copyrighted media because of
SOPA versus one who has to work two jobs to make ends meet?
Why is political neutrality on economic issues preferable to political
neutrality on intellectual property law issues? The latter is a subset of
the former. Acting as though one side of economic political debates is not
more accurate than their opposition in the face of overwhelming evidence to
the contrary is tantamount to the worst kind of "he said, she said"
journalism, which in this case is not only an affront to the readers who
expect occasional rational calls to action, but actively harms the rate at
which the encyclopedia is improved.