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(a)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(a)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(a)alk.edu.pl>
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>