... about the classical employer-employee relationship, I am totally against it. The reason is that there is so much effort wasted tracking and keeping people accountable
Priyanka Mandikal implemented a way to keep paid editors accountable using reputation tracking two years ago:
https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/
Accountability is calculated as an agreement ratio between reviewers:
https://github.com/priyankamandikal/arowf/blob/master/app.py#L462
...that is not the basis for a healthy relationship for a Wikimedia volunteer
Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia?
the will to cooperate in our mission should have precedence over the will to make a profit out of it
Does that exclude the financially disadvantaged?
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 5:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You compare two things that are not related and where there is a conflict of interest. As it is, we are severely lacking in information in many of our Wikipedias. Given that not even percent of the humans in Wikidata is from Africa, the #AfricaGap is bigger than the #GenderGap (no percent vs 16/17% of humans). This gets us into issues about English Wikipedia administration versus what it covers and how we can get people to write about for instance Africa and Gender.
Your interest of keeping up with vandalism and the fight against massive POV pushing, paid editing is something else altogether. I have no interest at all in your struggles, I will not volunteer to become an admin. I find that admins do and what I would expect from them is incompatible with what I want to spend time on. The aggression in many conversations I have come across makes me cringe.
When you want to improve issues that have to do with vandalism, POV, there are possibilities in tooling. One partial solution that I have in mind would improve the quality in articles, makes it obvious where there is a difference allowing for more focus. The point/problem is that this will not be specific to any one Wikipedia, it will show differences between projects and consequently it is not specifically a tool with a focus on POV pushing. With sufficient UI attention it may get more of the focus you are seeking.
As you seek control of our data, quality is king, it is what we should build upon. When you seek to exclude the interest of others over your own, I would hate to see you succeed. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 May 2018 at 11:59, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing is slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in our projects.
In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of decrease of admins on enwp, and some likewise tendency on dewp. Is this a sign that the "good" powers are losing out to the "bad" ones?
I also seen a very passive response to two massPOV editing . One, on 35 versions, is related to Hans Asperger, to state he was a nazi doctor (false, even if he was somewhat passive in some cases). Here dewp reacted quickly and after a while enwp, so these articles are OK, but in most of the other 35 this false info lies unchanged. Also I react to the effort from GazProm promoting their propaganda article /Football for Friendship / in up to 80 version, and where almost noone has neutralized it.
Are we slowly losing the battle against the "evil" forces? And if so, is then our new strategy (being good in itself) and the plan to implement it all too naive? For example I like very much the ambition to help out on areas in the world where Wikipedia etc is not established, but would it be more correct to put effort in regaining control of the very many Wikipedia versions, that is definitely degenerating and we are loosing what has been done on these. (as a test look at "latest changes" on some of the versions with low editing, it is depressing to see that there often are more vandal editing, not being undone, then proper new material)
Would it be most appropriate if we all in a 2-3 years effort concentrated on getting (back) control on our material in our projects, before we start efforts in implementing the strategy we have agreed upon. Perhaps a number of paid admins, vandal/pov fighters, about as many as there are stewards today, would be necessary not to lose out.
Anders
//
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe