Payment "in kind" is still a form of payment. Now, if it's just talking about expense reimbursement, I'm okay with that (so long as such reimbursement is done uniformly rather than just for certain people), but as far as I know that's already been done for a long time.
But it's still bothersome that, despite the fact that we have begged the WMF for years to come up with a solution to the issue of paid editing, not one of these recommendations addresses that. "Diversity", while certainly a noble goal, cannot be the only goal. Our strategy should primarily focus on the issues we have right now, today, and I do not see one single one of these recommendations addressing paid editing, one of the primary scourges we currently face, in any way whatsoever, and one that would at least arguably make it worse.
Todd
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 4:09 AM Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
The recommendation you link to was about ensuring diversity on decision making committees, and has this part “We are currently not sure about ‘paid editing’, and leaning towards not supporting that. ”.
I think it would help the discussion if we did not distort the content of the recommendations, especially as there may be people who read and engage with this list who have not had time to study the recommendations (or indeed the Fram saga cited a number of times earlier).
Best regards, Bence
Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com (időpont: 2019. aug. 25., V, 11:44) ezt írta:
Well then, why aren't you listening?
We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get paid edit requests removed from sites like Upwork, since they will not allow requests that violate another site's terms of service. But we've
been
completely unable to get WMF to do something unequivocal like that, so we get left to deal with the spam and crapvertising. Wikipedia admins get to deal with the fallout.
In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow paid editing, but have WMF do the paying. That is the direct, exact opposite of what we've been asking for! No paid editing, and certainly no paid editing from WMF!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
Why on Earth are we getting this garbage from WMF "working groups"? Do
they
know nothing at all about how the projects work, or do they not care and are trying to override them?
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point
that
a
majority of our communities is not interested in administration, organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in
the
discussion).
5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening
to
group.
best,
dj
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
-- -- Bence Damokos Sent from Gmail Mobile _______________________________________________ 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