geni wrote:
On 30 March 2013 20:57, James Salsman <jsalsman at
gmail.com> wrote:
...
(A) Should the Foundation devote banner space on project home pages to
CISPA advocacy?[3][4]
(B) Should the Foundation devote banner space on project home pages to
CALEA advocacy?[5]
(C) Should the Foundation devote banner space on project home pages to CFAA
advocacy?[6]
No since none of those have any impact on our core issues.
I disagree. All of those measures represent various forms of
government intrusion likely to change editor behaviors in a way which
can reasonably be expected to degrade article quality and
comprehensiveness.
Oliver Keyes wrote:
On 30 March 2013 20:57, James Salsman <jsalsman at
gmail.com> wrote:
As a more specific practical reformulation of
this question, how bad would
poverty in developed countries have to become before it would be
appropriate for the Foundation to advocate on the issue? Is it already
appropriate? Would it only be appropriate if the proportion of editors
leaving the project due to personal poverty was increasing? Would it never
be appropriate?
Speaking personally: ... It would, practically speaking, never be appropriate
for us to spend page impressions or chunks of page impressions on this kind
of advocacy - I say "practically" because, while things might alter slightly
if it turned out editors were leaving in droves due to poverty, this
seems...'ludicrously unlikely' doesn't cover it.
I presume that this opinion doesn't have any actual data behind it.
Here is some actual data, from the county where I went to school:
"The school system, which keeps the best records of homelessness in
the county, says the number of homeless students rose from 59 in 2001
to 2,812 in the current school year." --
http://prospect.org/article/weeklies
So there you have an example of students who would otherwise likely
join in the pool of potential editors in the developed world. Over the
period of time that Wikipedia has existed, they have become far less
likely to become editors because they have far less free time, less
access to internet resources, less access to personal educational
resources, and less financial capacity to perform ordinary tasks in
support of editing such as travel to university libraries and
obtaining specialist reference materials.
James, I appreciate that you care a lot about these
issues. But please stop
trying to use the movement as your personal soapbox.
When poverty increases in the developed world, the demand for my
customers' products increases in the developing world. Over the past
six years, the extent to which this has happened has far surpassed and
entirely supplanted my income as a software engineer in Silicon
Valley. I resent the insinuation that I am doing anything for myself
by showing the connections between poverty and the health of the
editor community, when in fact the opposite is true.
Sincerely,
James Salsman