Hi Anders,
I hear your worries. Indeed it seems that resisting the push is taking more
effort than what the community can take under the current circumstances, or
at least it doesn't look sustainable (the RfA chart shown in the last
Signpost [1] is really clear on that regard).
However, by providing different circumstances it could be feasible to keep
the ground or even regain it. It seems to be the case that since people are
editing in their free time, they do not have time for themselves to recover
from the attrition and eventually they give up, or find something more
fulfilling to do. In my case it has been like that. I started as Wikipedia
editor, but over the years I have been changing roles, and now I do not
have so much contact with Wikipedia as I used to have in the past.
You mentioned that paid roles would be helpful. I am concerned about how
this would be implemented. If you were thinking 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,
that in the end the only thing keeping the relationship alive is money and
statistics, and I feel that is not the basis for a healthy relationship for
a Wikimedia *volunteer* (I highlight that because I feel that the will to
cooperate in our mission should have precedence over the will to make a
profit out of it).
It is also realistic to think that if I want a volunteer dedicated 100% to
the mission, and I want to keep them on the project for their whole life,
then I will have to free him somehow from the duties of making a living.
Instead of paid roles, I would be more open to discussing the creation of a
common fund that volunteers could administer themselves to cover their
living expenses, partially or fully, depending on the resources.
In my opinion there should be options for everyone. Options for donating
free time without expecting anything in exchange (already exists), options
to be an employee for when it is difficult to find talent within the
community (already exists), and options to allow the community to take care
of the needs of volunteers (does not exist, grants are not given to a
person, but to a project).
I'm looking forward to hearing more views on the topic.
Regards,
Micru
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-05-24/Op-ed
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:59 AM, 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>
--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non