There is merit in discussing that recommendation for what it is about (perhaps in a separate thread or on the Meta talk page), but it was not about paid editing.
Best regards, Bence
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019, 13:16 Ilario valdelli, valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bence,
I think that this recommendation is ambigous. There is a specific sentence:
"We need to pay or otherwise compensate people to participate"
which can be opened to any interpretation.
I think that this recommendation is quite complicated to be accepted by the community because it associates the diversity to the privileges and would justify the paid activities on this basis. Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia structure has been based always on volunteering time, as soon it will be open to paid activities, the sense of participation will be distorted.
Basically, if we would explain to the man of street, why the community should continue to contribute on volunteering basis if some activities are paid? The reason that there are unprivileged members is weak in my opinion.
This is a distortion itself.
On 25/08/2019 12:09, Bence Damokos 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario Skype: valdelli Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch