... 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:
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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>