-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
What I thought was a simple question has generated a volley of strong answers, even some hostility. This was not the original topic. So I will wrap my intervention and be gone for a while.
==Representation== As far as I know, there is no survey of the wikimedians on what they think about the transparency of the Foundation and about the salaries of the employees. From my side, I always ask people what they think. In my life I listened to people of all ethnics and social classes from any country. So I'm doing an educated guess, based on my eclectic experiences and relationships, about the Foundation (and possibly the Chapters) not representing the consensus of the community (*). But don't throw your stones yet, and answer to yourself three questions: Do you care about what the community thinks? Do you have information about what it thinks? Is your circle of relationships and culture a good sample of the people concerned by the wikipedia project?
Apparently, most of the people in this mailing list are living in one of the most expensive microcosmos of the world, with the highest standards of life. In contrast, the drama about having microwaved food and an old car is incomprehensible to 6 billions of people. I do understand it, though, but your views need to be challenged.
Instead of explaining how normal, justified and even lowly paid is your way of life, did anyone put things in a bigger perspective? 150 000$ a year puts someone in the 0.33% top of the world [1]. Even 5000$ a month puts you in the 0.91% top. I'm not aiming at any individual in particular but showing the economical elitism of the Foundation in the worldwide context. And by the way, as a contrasting sidenote to the declarations made on this list about the price of legal advising, some associations do it for free [2]. All I'm asking here, is whether this approach was ever considered and tried?
==Ethics== The dozens of thousands of dedicated volunteers prove that the mission of Wikipedia is of an ethical essence. It is thus mandatory for the representatives and leaders to recognize it and share it. Despising or denying the ethical considerations is a mistake which can only end with the disavowing of an informed community.
I've been wondering for a while how the dedicated volunteers were keeping faith in their abnegation when some people were getting paid for the same work, or worse, for transforming the volunteer work into money - - which I find discouraging and disturbing. It seems that opacity is one of the answers. Things are done discreetly [3][4] and confidentially [5].
Unless the Foundation aims to transform the Wikipedia into a rich-countries-centered money-making-machine, (and the doubling of the paid staff for a doubling of the fundraising is quite ambiguous to interpret), compliance with legal requirements will not suffice: I don't see other path than ethical consciousness to authentically reach all mankind.
I've been asked to suggest concrete proposals. This would be useless as long as there is a majoritary denial. We can't discuss solutions while there is no awareness of the problem. And this lack of perception should be the first problem to be addressed.
Having said that, I will retire from the discussion for a while. I need some perspective too. Once again, bear in mind that I mean no offense.
(*): and remember that some - or in fact, most - communities are absent, as the current thread about american-africans shows.
[1]: http://www.globalrichlist.com/ [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center [3]: What's hidden in this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Book [4]: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thanks_Virgin_Unite [5]: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-October/000069...