> when "ticketed", this is usually to control numbers when
> space is limited. This model works pretty well and makes them
> popular events; indeed, they're one of our most visible public activities.
> I don't see where the benefit would come from selling - or raffling,
> auctioning, etc- tickets.
We should be treating editing wikipedia as one of the most profoundly
influential things a person can do in society, because there are
pretty good reasons to believe that it is. We should present
editathons led by skilled wikipedians as the premier cultural events
that they are. We are recruiting the people who will teach those who
are not in school, who answer questions and direct those in need of
assistance to the best resources. Wikipedia is the most monumental
feat of literature that civilization has yet produced. The idea that
art or sculpture exhibits should raise more money than training new
editors is, frankly, preposterous, and stems from the same fallacies
which keep the rest of the developed world from achieving teacher
salaries on par with Korea's.
> It would invariably deter attendees and reduce uptake
I propose that this be measured, because there is reason to believe
that transitioning to a half-auction, haff-raffle model could increase
public interest for a variety of reasons: acknowledging them as the
literary events that they are, the novelty (which may or may not
last), the opportunity for anyone to mingle with those who were able
to afford tickets if an when such events do become popular, etc. If at
some point an auction raises an unexpectedly large amount of money,
other cultural institutions might start to take notice, offer to host
editathons, or even start their own.
> why would making them more exclusive be a *good* thing?
"Exclusive" has both positive and negative connotations. Exclusive
access to important sources is good for those who have access, but bad
for everyone else. The half-raffle aspect keeps everyone involved
without precluding the possibility of the events paying for
themselves, paying all the bills in advance, and not risking low
turnout or exceeding the size of the venue, which very substantially
lowers the risk of organizing and hosting them. Presumably that could
serve to make them easier and make them more likely to be held.
> I worry that running an auction and a raffle for each - or even some -
> editathons would be a lot of work
I think software support should be easy, or even administration by
email. Any auction bid, even 0, will enter the raffle, and auction
bids would be accepted as payment from half of the available seats.
When fewer nonzero bids than half the seats are received, then they
would all be accepted and the remaining seats would be raffled.
> You'd be paying volunteers, which in this country would make them
> staff, which means they'd need a minimum wage, taxes, and even a
> pension.
Isn't there a way to put the requirement of taking care of those tasks
and expenses in the job responsibilities? Aren't there service agencies
who do that as a flat fee for the mass commercial market?
> there's no shortage of volunteers to run editathons in the UK
I wish other countries could say the same. But compare editathons to,
for example, poetry slams, or street protests, in any country. Which
are more common and which do we need more of? I am asking that someone
measure the proposed way which may be able to substantially increase
their number.
Best regards,
James
