Thanks for having this conversation. Having a balanced life is important, but why should the revenues generated by volunteer work not go back to volunteers also? In truth, wikimedia projects are addictive, time consuming, they generate passionate debates and I have seen many going down the black hole and finding it hard to manage “priorities”. This situation is detrimental to those who struggle most to survive. Should contributing be the activity of only those rich people who can afford to be volunteers on their free time? I dont think so. Tackling with gendergap issues, I see many women not contributing because they say “it’s time consuming” and they cant afford it. I don’t know how to deal with these issues, but at the core of implementing “strategic orientations” which include diversity issues, well it is a must have conversation. As for the wikimedia blog I dont really have an idea on that: if the WMF does it, finances it, well ... At the same time it would need to remain under free licence so that we can use the stories in our projects, because the revenue paying it is generated from our volunteer work. Have a nice day, I have just bought myself a canoe kayak, which is the only way for me not to get entangled in contributing on a bright sunny day. I cant bring my computer on the river! I think we should finance “wikimedians go green off wiki for the week end projects”. Some days off the internet walking, swimming, having chats by a fire wood and just taking care of ourselves off wiki. Nattes à chat

I made this point earlier this month, but let me make it again. Money generated by volunteers should indeed go back to volunteers. It just can not go back as a salary. If it goes back as a salary, you have people working together, some of them being paid for the work, and some doing it for free. If there is any conflict, "volunteers" getting salary will defend their decision until they get blocked. We have seen this happening with some of the WMF staffers who were not succeptible to any feedback of the community. We have seen it with people who were not paid but who still got some bonuses from WMF or the chapters. If a considerable amount of volunteers get paid we are going to have it all over the place. Concerning the motivation and the lack of time. Well, we all have real-time obligations. I am a professor in a top research university. An hour of my time costs, well, a lot. If I spent these three-four hours per day I am currently spending for Wikimedia projects instead for my primary duties (and our working time is essentially unlimited despite the 40 hr/week legal restriction), I would probably produce much more results than I currently do. And what I am doing on Wikipedia nobody else is doing. If I disappear, the work just stays not done. But this is our choice. If someone has no time for editing Wikipedia - well, obviously, they have other priorities. In this sense I fully symphatize with Bodhisattwa's example of a user spending their last money to go to internet cafe to edit Wikipedia. Wikimedia projects have grown as bottom-up institutions. All attempts to rebuild them top-down failed miserably. We indeed have a lot of people who shout loud, do very little, and get all kinds of credits for the work others have done. But paying these other people if not the way to go. Cheers Yaroslav On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Natacha Rault <n.rault(a)me.com> wrote:

We did have a proposal on EN WP for a group of functionaires to help deal with issues pertaining to undisclosed paid editing. I do not feel this group would require payment but support to meet once or twice a year IMO could be useful. Such a group could play a leading roll in: 1) Collecting and organizing the knowing companies that are in breach of our TOU. This will help warn people not to hire these companies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PAIDLIST 2) Collecting groups of known undisclosed paid editors to feed into the AI tools that are being build. More AI folks would also be helpful. 3) Managing private details about undisclosed paid editing 4) Working with intermediaries like Upworks to help address some of the worst offenders working via that site among others Arbcom has recently agreed to take on some of this work but not sure if they have the time or inclination to manage it fully. With respect to appreciate for work on Wikipedia / Wikimedia, we have few mechanism for our readers to provide such feedback. And members of the community are often more critical of our efforts than the wider world. The offline apps are interesting as Google play provides better mechanisms for positive feedback and reading the feedback helps remind me that what we are doing really does matter. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.kiwix.kiwixcustomwikimed James On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:19 AM, Anders Wennersten &lt;mail(a)anderswennersten.se > I can agree with most what you write Yaroslav, but I want also to remind > the scenario that started this issue. > > I believe we are in a process of worsening deterioration of the content in > our major project (Enwp,dewp etc). This as the rewards to enter biased info > in these are getting higher as the reliability in our content/brand project > increase. At the same time there are indication that the people "at the > front" of neutralizing these "attack" are getting fewer and overstrained. > (number of admins of the being decreasing). According to me it forces us to > act before the situation gets out of control (we lose the quality and > credibility in our content). And the choices, as I see it, is to either > give up our vision "free to all to update" (only validated accounts to > update) or to strengthen our "defending" forces. > > It is not unique to have participant in our project to being given > financial support. We have our Wikipedian in residence, and at the top in > the hierarchy of Check users we have WMF employee, and in my understanding > these cooperations work OK. > > I have no direct suggesting how a model to financial support these > defenders should look like and I do not see it being many perhaps 10-15 in > total. But I do think it would be a good ting discuss these option, and see > if a proposal could be put forwards without the negative risks you mention. > > Anders > > > > Den 2018-06-10 kl. 12:30, skrev Yaroslav Blanter: > >> If it goes back as a salary, you have people >> working together, some of them being paid for the work, and some doing it >> for free. If there is any conflict, "volunteers" getting salary will >> defend >> their decision until they get blocked. >> >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Natacha Rault &lt;n.rault(a)me.com>> >> Thanks for having this conversation. >>> Having a balanced life is important, but why should the revenues >>> generated >>> by volunteer work not go back to volunteers also? >>> In truth, wikimedia projects are addictive, time consuming, they generate >>> passionate debates and I have seen many going down the black hole and >>> finding it hard to manage “priorities”. >>> This situation is detrimental to those who struggle most to survive. >>> Should contributing be the activity of only those rich people who can >>> afford to be volunteers on their free time? I dont think so. >>> Tackling with gendergap issues, I see many women not contributing because >>> they say “it’s time consuming” and they cant afford it. >>> I don’t know how to deal with these issues, but at the core of >>> implementing “strategic orientations” which include diversity issues, >>> well >>> it is a must have conversation. >>> As for the wikimedia blog I dont really have an idea on that: if the WMF >>> does it, finances it, well ... At the same time it would need to remain >>> under free licence so that we can use the stories in our projects, >>> because >>> the revenue paying it is generated from our volunteer work. >>> >>> Have a nice day, I have just bought myself a canoe kayak, which is the >>> only way for me not to get entangled in contributing on a bright sunny >>> day. >>> I cant bring my computer on the river! >>> I think we should finance “wikimedians go green off wiki for the week end >>> projects”. Some days off the internet walking, swimming, having chats by >>> a >>> fire wood and just taking care of ourselves off wiki. >>> >>> >>> Nattes à chat >>> >>> Le 10 juin 2018 à 05:38, Bodhisattwa Mandal &lt;bodhisattwa.rgkmc(a)gmail.com >>>> > >>>> >>> a écrit : >>> >>>> Hi David, >>>> >>>> I hear you. >>>> >>>> I live in that part of the world where getting any job and earning >>>> money, >>>> by any means possible, is the topmost priority of life, as unemployment >>>> >>> and >>> >>>> corruption has become intimate part of most of the people. Involvement >>>> in >>>> volunteer works with no personal or financial gain, is not appreciated >>>> at >>>> all and sanity is frequently questioned even by family members and close >>>> friends. The real life is far more harsh for us than the issues we face >>>> >>> in >>> >>>> Wikipedia. >>>> >>>> But, I have seen people, who have fought against all extreme odds to >>>> >>> create >>> >>>> contents in Wikimedia. I met an Wikimedian, who would have no food or >>>> >>> money >>> >>>> for the next day to survive, if he didn't go and look for some labour >>>> >>> work >>> >>>> and earn some money for his family, yet learned advanced computer works >>>> from scratch with the help of a Jurassic age broken laptop gifted by a >>>> well-wisher and built the most impactful project in his language, >>>> believe >>>> me, I have seen that laptop with my own eyes. I know someone, very close >>>> >>> to >>> >>>> my heart, who once spent the small amount of money he had with him, to >>>> >>> pay >>> >>>> the cyber cafe, he went almost everyday to edit Wikipedia, even if he >>>> >>> knew, >>> >>>> that the money he was spending, was his last resort for that day. These >>>> Wikimedians are no less than a legend to me and whenever I feel >>>> >>> frustrated >>> >>>> and burnt out, I remember them. I am pretty sure, everyone in this >>>> >>> movement >>> >>>> knows someone amazing. >>>> >>>> You are absolutely right, people who build Wikipedia from their core of >>>> their heart are not heard or appreciated in larger Wikimedia world, some >>>> >>> of >>> >>>> them are silently contributing forl a long time , without any >>>> expectation >>>> from anyone. On the other hand, I have seen loud mouths with almost no >>>> substantial or impactful contribution at all, being featured everywhere >>>> >>> on >>> >>>> a regular basis. That's an unfair world we everyday deal with and >>>> >>> Wikimedia >>> >>>> is not an exception. >>>> >>>> I will totally support you, if you create a meta page for these silent >>>> volunteers, who needs to be seen. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Bodhisattwa >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, 01:56 David Cuenca Tudela, &lt;dacuetu(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> Aubrey, >>>>> >>>>> You speak so much truth in your words that I'm feeling overwhelmed >>>>> right >>>>> now. Because like a doctor who cares about his patient, you have just >>>>> >>>> very >>> >>>> lovingly and figuratively told me, "you are deeply sick". It hurts, I >>>>> struggle accepting the truth, but deep inside I know that the only >>>>> >>>> thing I >>> >>>> can do is to acknowledge your words, and as every human before of me ask >>>>> the perennial questions: "why me? what could have I done differently?" >>>>> >>>>> You are right, I put my whole being into this project, I have seen it >>>>> >>>> as a >>> >>>> way to find purpose, meaning, liberation, and instead what I have found >>>>> >>>> is >>> >>>> the emptiness, my own and that of the people who are in the same >>>>> >>>> situation >>> >>>> as me. Maybe they also need the same things as I do, but we never talked >>>>> about it so I don't know what they need, they never told me. Unlike >>>>> >>>> other >>> >>>> people, however, I do know what I need to find purpose here. >>>>> >>>>> To me purpose comes from the mutual acknowledgment with my peers that >>>>> we >>>>> are here for something bigger than ourselves. We might never achieve >>>>> >>>> those >>> >>>> dreams, but being next to someone who understands you because they are >>>>> >>>> in >>> >>>> the same situation, makes life more bearable. But do we share the same >>>>> dream or aspiration at all? Has anyone ever take a collective vow to >>>>> >>>> show >>> >>>> to themselves and to others that this is what matters in their life, and >>>>> that they are committing to it? I do not think anyone has ever done >>>>> >>>> that. >>> >>>> You say that you have given up, but I do not want to reach that point. I >>>>> feel I want to try to build a real community environment and give >>>>> >>>> everyone >>> >>>> a chance before giving up on them. >>>>> >>>>> My desire as I was typing my email was to be seen, to be recognized by >>>>> >>>> who >>> >>>> I am, to be understood even. That is something that only a true friend >>>>> could do for me, but as you say we are not good friends even if we did >>>>> >>>> some >>> >>>> cool things together. We want to collect "all human knowledge", but >>>>> >>>> what do >>> >>>> we actually know about each other? Is that not valid knowledge or what? >>>>> >>>> In >>> >>>> my opinion the knowledge about the people in this movement, what they >>>>> >>>> do, >>> >>>> who they are, what are their dreams, their aspirations, should be >>>>> >>>> collected >>> >>>> with at least as much interest as we collect all other kind of >>>>> >>>> knowledge. >>> >>>> Yet nobody does that. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no collective information about who I am and what I have >>>>> >>>> done >>> >>>> these years, how can I expect other people to value me as much as I >>>>> >>>> want to >>> >>>> value them? I am as guilty as anyone else for not caring about my fellow >>>>> volunteers in this project, but that doesn't need to continue being >>>>> that >>>>> way, it can change. I can commit to write a page on Meta about any >>>>> volunteer who wants their work on this project to be seen and >>>>> >>>> recognized, >>> >>>> and of course anyone can do that for me to. We only need the will. >>>>> >>>>> You say that that WMF bears responsibility in the "failure" of our >>>>> Wikisource community project, and that it is not important now. I do >>>>> not >>>>> agree about the timing, I find it is very relevant now, because the >>>>> same >>>>> pattern that has happened before, it is happening again now. And the >>>>> pattern is that of the individual voice vs. the organization. We are >>>>> >>>> like >>> >>>> ants next to a giant, we complain and say what we need, but we are so >>>>> little in comparison that our voice doesn't reach any ears. For >>>>> >>>> Wikisource >>> >>>> we thought, ok, if we are not being heard as individuals maybe we'll be >>>>> heard as an organization, but that didn't happen either! So now that I >>>>> >>>> have >>> >>>> this issue about the Wikimedia Blog and I complain about it, I feel >>>>> helpless because it is again an individual standing up against a >>>>> >>>> behemoth >>> >>>> that will not listen neither to myself as individual nor to myself as an >>>>> organization. What is there for me left to do? >>>>> >>>>> The only thing it is left for me to do is to question the legitimacy of >>>>> >>>> the >>> >>>> WMF as the leadership organization of the Wikimedia movement, >>>>> >>>> understanding >>> >>>> leadership as the capacity to listen to many individual voices and act >>>>> >>>> in a >>> >>>> way that is beneficial to all of them. If the WMF is incapable of >>>>> >>>> listening >>> >>>> to my individual voice, then I want either a reform in the WMF to >>>>> >>>> include >>> >>>> people who are able to listen at the top of the hierarchy, or a new >>>>> organization who can listen and create a common vision out of what it >>>>> hears. Things like the Strategy process are supposed to help with this >>>>> goal, however I feel it doesn't offer the space for day to day >>>>> >>>> activities >>> >>>> or to challenge participants with new ideas, then it has no use for me. >>>>> >>>>> So yes, I will follow your advice and I will pick my battles, putting >>>>> myself first. In this case my battle from this moment on is to >>>>> recognize >>>>> the authority of the Wikimedia movement as a whole, and build >>>>> leadership >>>>> legitimacy for me and all those in the movement who are able to listen. >>>>> >>>> I >>> >>>> do believe that such people exist in our movement (I know a few), and >>>>> >>>> that >>> >>>> they have a very high capacity for listening, but they themselves are >>>>> >>>> not >>> >>>> being heard, and that is extremely unfair, and it is something I would >>>>> >>>> like >>> >>>> to correct because me and the movement would benefit greatly. And as you >>>>> said money is necessary, so it has to be paid. >>>>> >>>>> @SJ: as you can see from my email, there are deeper issues than just >>>>> the >>>>> blog. >>>>> >>>>> @Pine: Thank you for our conversation this morning. I learnt a lot from >>>>> hearing your perspective, and I felt heard by you because you gave me >>>>> >>>> the >>> >>>> opportunity to voice my concerns, and you asked me questions about them. >>>>> >>>>> @Frederick: Yes, money is an issue that has to be discussed with the >>>>> community broadly. I think it might be too much to elaborate about it >>>>> >>>> now >>> >>>> on this conversation, but it can be the topic for another thread. >>>>> About volunteer burnout, I feel many of us feel underappreciated >>>>> because >>>>> there is no space in our projects for appreciation. For now the only >>>>> proposal I had in mind is about creating pages on Meta for volunteers, >>>>> >>>> so >>> >>>> the work of individuals can be seen completely. Perhaps it needs more >>>>> discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Micru >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >> i/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> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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> > -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

Hi David, Well, I did not reply because I disagree but in my experience having long arguments with people one disagrees with usually does not lead to agreement and is also very tiring. You gave your opinion, I gave mine, it is up to other readers to decide whose arguments are stronger. I really hate this "last word" game. If Natacha did not raise exactly the same argument again, I would not even respond. Concerning people who do the job and do not feel appreciated - I absolutely agree with you that they should be rewarded. The appreciation can come from both the community and the WMF (and possibly sometimes from the external parties). I just disagree that this appreciation should be monetary. There are many ways to reward people and at the same to avoid introducing additional factors which I believe are harmful for the community. Concerning the premise that the existed model does not work anymore - I just disagree with the premise. Indeed, we have for example burnout of volunteers - I myself resigned the admin tools in the English Wikipedia in January, and stopped editing for a month in February, after the community failed to do anything about long-term harassment of a certain user directed at me - but this unfortunately happened before and will happen later. Specifically concerning the administrator issue, in the English Wikipedia I would still like to see any evidence that there is work which requires an admin attention and does not get it. All backlogs I am aware of originate not because administrators are lazy or there are too few of them, but because things are being asked are not submitted to a right place - such as for example someone asking to resolve a long-standing content dispute claiming it is vandalism. Cheers Yaroslav On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:21 PM, David Cuenca Tudela &lt;dacuetu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

James, I think you yourself earlier today put forwards a possible first step in this direction. Support a group of people working "at the front" in neutralizing paid editing and other bad editing, by giving them possiblity to meet IRL, and why not at a session commited to this issue at WIkimania? Anders Den 2018-06-10 kl. 20:09, skrev James Heilman:

Actually, concerning the group of people working "at the front" might work (as soon as it is not just about the support of the English Wikipedia), and I would not count sending them to Wikimania as a monetary reward - assuming this group undergoes regular rotations, and people who stop working leave the group. Cheers Yaroslav On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Anders Wennersten &lt;mail(a)anderswennersten.se > James, I think you yourself earlier today put forwards a possible first > step in this direction. > > Support a group of people working "at the front" in neutralizing paid > editing and other bad editing, by giving them possiblity to meet IRL, and > why not at a session commited to this issue at WIkimania? > > Anders > > > > Den 2018-06-10 kl. 20:09, skrev James Heilman: > >> There is a fair bit of literature on intrinsic versus extrinsic >> motivation. >> Wikipedia has been mostly built on the first. Introducing greater >> extrinsic >> motivation may decrease intrinsic motivation. Doing so should thus be done >> with great care, at a small scale that can be reversed, and be well >> studied >> to make sure the positive outweigh the negatives before being expanded. >> Not >> saying we should not look at this just that it may not result in the >> benefits we hope far. With respect to burn out, emergency physicians are >> generally paid well yet over half are experiencing burnout. >> https://wire.ama-assn.org/life-career/report-reveals-severit >> y-burnout-specialty >> >> James >> >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Yaroslav Blanter &lt;ymbalt(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> >> Hi David, >>> >>> Well, I did not reply because I disagree but in my experience having long >>> arguments with people one disagrees with usually does not lead to >>> agreement >>> and is also very tiring. You gave your opinion, I gave mine, it is up to >>> other readers to decide whose arguments are stronger. I really hate this >>> "last word" game. If Natacha did not raise exactly the same argument >>> again, >>> I would not even respond. >>> >>> Concerning people who do the job and do not feel appreciated - I >>> absolutely >>> agree with you that they should be rewarded. The appreciation can come >>> from >>> both the community and the WMF (and possibly sometimes from the external >>> parties). I just disagree that this appreciation should be monetary. >>> There >>> are many ways to reward people and at the same to avoid introducing >>> additional factors which I believe are harmful for the community. >>> >>> Concerning the premise that the existed model does not work anymore - I >>> just disagree with the premise. Indeed, we have for example burnout of >>> volunteers - I myself resigned the admin tools in the English Wikipedia >>> in >>> January, and stopped editing for a month in February, after the community >>> failed to do anything about long-term harassment of a certain user >>> directed >>> at me - but this unfortunately happened before and will happen later. >>> Specifically concerning the administrator issue, in the English >>> Wikipedia I >>> would still like to see any evidence that there is work which requires an >>> admin attention and does not get it. All backlogs I am aware of originate >>> not because administrators are lazy or there are too few of them, but >>> because things are being asked are not submitted to a right place - such >>> as >>> for example someone asking to resolve a long-standing content dispute >>> claiming it is vandalism. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Yaroslav >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:21 PM, David Cuenca Tudela &lt;dacuetu(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>> >>> Yaroslav, >>>> >>>> Yes, you already made your point earlier, and I addressed it here [1] >>>> and >>>> also in the draft proposal to enable some volunteers to receive >>>> donations >>>> for their work [2]. The fact that you neither commented on my reply to >>>> >>> your >>> >>>> initial concern, nor on the proposal suggests me several possibilities. >>>> >>> The >>> >>>> first one is that you are not listening to me [3], because you are not >>>> interacting with the proposals that could counter your fears, and you >>>> are >>>> not asking questions about them. The second one is that you don't trust >>>> your own capacity to listen to other people even when money is involved. >>>> That could also be, because people with the biggest fear that others do >>>> >>> not >>> >>>> listen to them are indeed not well equiped to listen to other people. >>>> And >>>> the third one could be that you are a victim of your own observations, >>>> >>> you >>> >>>> might be so used to see white swans (people being paid not listening) in >>>> your life that the mere idea that black swans (people being paid who >>>> listen) exist might seem inconceibable for you. It could also be that >>>> you >>>> find something wrong or that could be done better in my proposal or that >>>> you have a better one, but since you haven't voiced your opinion, I >>>> don't >>>> know what. >>>> >>>> Concerning time and motivation, I consider that the people who are >>>> contributing during their official working hours without explicit >>>> >>> permision >>> >>>> to do so are effectively STEALING resources from their employer. This is >>>> >>> of >>> >>>> course a partial view, because who owns actually the planetary >>>> resources? >>>> And who is there to say that it is not reasonable to invest some in >>>> Wikimedia projects? Although I understand and I feel empathy for the >>>> volunteers that Bodhisattwa mentions, I feel that what Aubrey said >>>> before >>>> holds true here: "You can't do good if there's no "you" in the first >>>> place". So if I ever meet people like that I will tell them: you are not >>>> doing any good here, because you are not putting yourself first. >>>> >>>> You say that "we indeed have a lot of people who shout loud, do very >>>> little, and get all kinds of credits for the work others have done". But >>>> >>> we >>> >>>> also have many people who speak quietly, do very much, and get no credit >>>> for what they are doing, and I do not see harm in recognizing their work >>>> with donations, specially if they commit to improve themselves and to >>>> listen. You don't explain why you don't like people who listen and who >>>> >>> get >>> >>>> donations. Tbh, I do not like to have slaves in our movement, and I >>>> think >>>> we should free them from this kind of ungrateful slavery that many seem >>>> >>> to >>> >>>> be very happy about. At least slaves got some food, and a place to >>>> sleep. >>>> >>>> And also listen to what Anders is saying, our model is not working any >>>> >>> more >>> >>>> (it was not sustainable to start with), we have reached the limit, and >>>> >>> now >>> >>>> it is time to reinvent ourselves. And as far as I know most of us here >>>> >>> are >>> >>>> "bottom", so we are building "bottom-up". >>>> >>>> @Aubrey: Thanks for your long answer :) I'll address it later on, to >>>> >>> write >>> >>>> this email took me at least 5h of coming to the keyboard and leaving to >>>> manage the stress. I hope a reply to your email takes me a bit less... >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Micru >>>> >>>> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018- >>>> >>> May/090365.html >>> >>>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Micru/Draft_RFC >>>> [3] >>>> https://www.csh.umn.edu/education/focus-areas/whole- >>>> systems-healing/leadership/deep-listening >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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> >>> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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> >

Hi David, I just repeated the formulation of James's proposal (our messages crossed, I did not react to your message). Concerning your earlier question on whether "people getting money to learn to listen" would work - well, it might. But than these people should be clearly distinguished from the rest of the community and might not create content, at least not with their special accounts. (I already explained why I think paying people to create content is a bad idea, and why having people in the community who are paid alongside with these who are doing the same job and are not paid is a bad idea). This is, as far as I understand it, the idea of the WMF community engagement team (in particular, community health). However, whereas in principle it might work, I do not see how it could be scaled up - you need people speaking several dozens of languages, and who are professionally qualified. And I also agree that whereas there are clearly things which are not healthy in the community, large-scale psychoterapy is not what we should and can provide. If people are engaged to the point that they get addicted and need some rehabilitation, they should disengage (and possibly even forcibly be disengaged, as happened to one recently globally banned user who meant well but was unable to stop) and seek professional assistance outside Wikimedia movement. Wikimedia is about creating free content and propagating free knowledge, it is not about making friends, creating social networks, or getting the hobbies monetized. (To be clear, I do not imply at all that you have these intentions or need rehabilitation or smth, but the sentiment repeats much too often). Cheers Yaroslav On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:28 AM, David Cuenca Tudela &lt;dacuetu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Aubrey, I promised you an answer, and here it comes finally. Sorry it took me a while :) Why do I want to be in this movement and not in another one? Because I find the people here as crazy idealist as I am. Because the tasks give us something to do that allows us to have something in common. Because it satisfies this excessive (pathological?) curiosity I have for everything. Because we have built something that the world admires, and we are respected for that. What could do everyone in this movement better to satisfy my sense of purpose? To be even more daringly idealist, to bring it to the extreme and beyond. To be able to find things in common with other volunteers without having to do anything. To go beyond curiosity for the world and have also curiosity about one another. To use the respect that the world has for us to effectively activate global changes. What is the reward I expect from this movement? To be transformed. To come here with a limited vision of reality and to have it expanded. To be challenged, to challenge others, and to learn from that. Is it wrong to look for meaning/purpose in the Wikimedia movement? As it is now, yes. The movement is not well equiped to provide meaning, but with enough will and perseverance, everything can change. Do you know what I really like about the people in this movement? That they really care, about *everything*, and that when I care about something in particular, they understand the feeling, and I don't have to explain the burden that it is. And from this conversation and from the messages that I received in private, I also can tell that there is care for one another too. Sometimes I believe that we might not have the tools to express this care. I know this because I wish the best for everyone and it is hard to show, and since we are not that different, that must be the situation of everyone, right? :) If money is not the "silver bullet" to address the problems, what is it then? I think it is a combination. I'm too humble to say "give me money, give me power, I am the right person to help you". No, I don't feel it works that way. The only thing I can do is enable the structures that allow *anyone* to step forward and start challenging our wrong ideas, but to do that I strongly believe they need community support, material and immaterial. Not to do whatever they want, nor to do whatever anyone else wants, but to bring about at least personal growth and wisdom. Wikimedia doesn't complete me either. I come here complete, yet I see in here a window to the world. If the importance to listen deeply is understood here, and its benefits felt, then it will be a matter of time that it will spread everywhere. If the capacity to embody ideas, and bring them forward, not with the intention to impose them, but with the will to improve them and understand better how they fit into our lives, then that also will spread. If all this spreads into the world, then no matter where I am or with who, I will feel the effects of the Wikimedia community in my life. I also have experience with feeling alone with my crowd. And my realization has been that no matter where I go I will feel alone unless I learn to be *inquisitively* curious about the other, while encouraging them to do the same with me (it has to go both ways). Only then true mutual understanding is built, and then there is trust to share more, and to forget about all judgments and misconceptions. And then through others you also learn to get to know yourself better, and then you become your best friend, and then it is awesome because that is the person you spent most of the time with. I like others very much, and I like myself too :) Of course this takes effort, and not everyone is ready or in the situation to engage in this process, so I feel that to have a handful of people that know you really well is already a lot. Micru On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:06 PM Andrea Zanni &lt;zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non