I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather and process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is volunteership.
Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be any need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen, but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal, educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we seem to forget that.
A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as any software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy working with my fellows on a common mission?
The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our volunteers. Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns of participation?
It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without resorting to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research more information about the topic.
Cheers, Micru
I have to agree here. The WMF and its employees have forgotten that the mission is to support the work done on the various wikis, not make work for fireworks for themselves. Nothing we are dealing with here is new. It is just the eruption of some very long-standing problems with the WMF and the tone it sets for the rest of the movement. While some might be celebrating now, Lila was not the problem. IMHO, the problem is a lot of hidden hierarchies (denied of course). Add to that, that the lack of transparency allows the growth of hidden agendas. Remember this blew when a community selected board member was tossed off the board unceremoniously. We find out through this that the community (or chapters) have no real voice on the board under the current set up.
From: dacuetu@gmail.com Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:30 +0100 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization
I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather and process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is volunteership.
Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be any need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen, but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal, educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we seem to forget that.
A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as any software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy working with my fellows on a common mission?
The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our volunteers. Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns of participation?
It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without resorting to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research more information about the topic.
Cheers, Micru _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Leigh Thelmadatter osamadre@hotmail.com wrote:
I have to agree here.
Yes.
The WMF and its employees have forgotten that the mission is to support the work done on the various wikis, not make work for fireworks for themselves.
No.
Nothing we are dealing with here is new. It is just the eruption of some very long-standing problems with the WMF and the tone it sets for the rest of the movement.
Yes.
While some might be celebrating now,
No, except as sense of relief in an immediate part of problem bent addressed.
Lila was not the problem. IMHO, the problem is a lot of hidden hierarchies (denied of course). Add to that, that the lack of transparency allows the growth of hidden agendas.
Remember this blew when a community selected board member was tossed off
the board unceremoniously. We find out through this that the community (or chapters) have no real voice on the board under the current set up.
Yes.
-- brion
From: dacuetu@gmail.com javascript:; Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:30 +0100 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization
I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
and
process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is volunteership.
Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
any
need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen, but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal, educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we seem to forget that.
A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as
any
software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy working with my fellows on a common mission?
The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our volunteers. Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns
of
participation?
It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without
resorting
to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research more information about the topic.
Cheers, Micru _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Hi Leigh In general there is always a transparent hierarchy and an untasparent one self organized following the real leaderships.
Problems happen when the gap between both increases. In this case the real decisions are made in front of a coffee machine and not in the right places.
The solution is a strong commitment from higher levels and a different organization (for instance by matrix and not simply functional).
Anyway it is the C level having the power to introduce a revolution like this.
Kind regards Il 28/Feb/2016 08:09 PM, "Leigh Thelmadatter" osamadre@hotmail.com ha scritto:
I have to agree here. The WMF and its employees have forgotten that the mission is to support the work done on the various wikis, not make work for fireworks for themselves. Nothing we are dealing with here is new. It is just the eruption of some very long-standing problems with the WMF and the tone it sets for the rest of the movement. While some might be celebrating now, Lila was not the problem. IMHO, the problem is a lot of hidden hierarchies (denied of course). Add to that, that the lack of transparency allows the growth of hidden agendas. Remember this blew when a community selected board member was tossed off the board unceremoniously. We find out through this that the community (or chapters) have no real voice on the board under the current set up.
From: dacuetu@gmail.com Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:30 +0100 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization
I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
and
process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is volunteership.
Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
any
need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen, but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal, educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we seem to forget that.
A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as
any
software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy working with my fellows on a common mission?
The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our volunteers. Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns
of
participation?
It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without
resorting
to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research more information about the topic.
Cheers, Micru _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :)
-- brion
On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather and process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is volunteership.
Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be any need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen, but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal, educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we seem to forget that.
A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as any software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy working with my fellows on a common mission?
The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our volunteers. Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns of participation?
It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without resorting to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research more information about the topic.
Cheers, Micru _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :)
To clarify, we are strongly agreed that constructive support of people to accomplish movement goals is why WMF exists.
My message was focused on internal management/staff relations, adding context to Lila's post.
Your message is focused on external company/volunteer relations -- just as important and affecting more people -- and with very similar concerns about giving needed support to help people succeed.
Ok now I'm way over my post quota, so going back to lurking.
-- brion
-- brion
On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela <dacuetu@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dacuetu@gmail.com');> wrote:
I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather and process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is volunteership.
Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be any need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen, but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal, educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we seem to forget that.
A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as any software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy working with my fellows on a common mission?
The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our volunteers. Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns of participation?
It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without resorting to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research more information about the topic.
Cheers, Micru _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Brion, so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the WMF as a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about other roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant making. So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there should be more power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater focus in empowering volunteers? How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the direction of the movement? And how to offer volunteers the opportunity to become more dedicated without paying them directly?
Cheers Micru
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :)
-- brion
On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
and
process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is volunteership.
Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
any
need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen, but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal, educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we seem to forget that.
A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as
any
software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy working with my fellows on a common mission?
The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our volunteers. Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns
of
participation?
It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without
resorting
to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research more information about the topic.
Cheers, Micru _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Two distinct issues, I think:
1) about improving community representation in power structures, I think we have to think more about what representation we want and what structures would accomplish it. I have no answers but think we should consider looking beyond WMF alone:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082703.html
2) about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively: I'll have mostly tech-focused thoughts on that because that's where my expertise is, so you need to hear from other people who interact with a wider set of volunteers than patch contributors and the people who manage to figure out our feedback systems. :) whether that should be funded by / staffed within WMF or our other movement orgs or both is an open question.
-- brion On Feb 28, 2016 11:51 AM, "David Cuenca Tudela" dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Brion, so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the WMF as a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about other roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant making. So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there should be more power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater focus in empowering volunteers? How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the direction of the movement? And how to offer volunteers the opportunity to become more dedicated without paying them directly?
Cheers Micru
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :)
-- brion
On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the
WMF
should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed
to
suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
and
process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force
is
volunteership.
Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
any
need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of
working
for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to
happen,
but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal, educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens
we
seem to forget that.
A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and
joy
that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as
any
software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy working with my fellows on a common mission?
The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then
I
look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our volunteers. Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old
patterns
of
participation?
It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without
resorting
to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is
possible.
I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it
is
possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research more information about the topic.
Cheers, Micru _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Management#References
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
Two distinct issues, I think:
<snip>
- about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively:
<cut>
Hi Brion
When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia
Have we forgotten so soon the adverse media publicity about these stealth PR campaigns
"Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it's no longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It's just another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products" [1]
"payment of money to Wikipedia editors represented "the greatest threat the [Wikipedia] brand has seen to date" [2].
Lila had taken the first technical / automation /AI steps to identify / weed out the paid editing claques which rule the roost. That she was eased out in this way shows that WMF is in terminal disrepair, and I resent Flo's attempt to deflect this thread away from the numerous paid editing controversies which have dogged the projects since the very beginning and systematically driven away all competent potential long-term contributors.
At the risk of being unpopular, I suggest the long-term health of our projects require that its not about empowering our volunteers but about regulating them.
David
[1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/20/roger_bamkin_gibraltor_s_...
[2] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/20/wikimedia_uk_scandal/
On 2/29/16, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
Two distinct issues, I think:
- about improving community representation in power structures, I think we
have to think more about what representation we want and what structures would accomplish it. I have no answers but think we should consider looking beyond WMF alone:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082703.html
- about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively: I'll have
mostly tech-focused thoughts on that because that's where my expertise is, so you need to hear from other people who interact with a wider set of volunteers than patch contributors and the people who manage to figure out our feedback systems. :) whether that should be funded by / staffed within WMF or our other movement orgs or both is an open question.
-- brion On Feb 28, 2016 11:51 AM, "David Cuenca Tudela" dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Brion, so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the WMF as a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about other roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant making. So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there should be more power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater focus in empowering volunteers? How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the direction of the movement? And how to offer volunteers the opportunity to become more dedicated without paying them directly?
Cheers Micru
On Feb 28, 2016 7:23 PM, "David Emrany" david.emrany@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Brion
When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ?
Never heard of it, so can't comment.
-- brion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia
Have we forgotten so soon the adverse media publicity about these stealth PR campaigns
"Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it's no longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It's just another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products" [1]
"payment of money to Wikipedia editors represented "the greatest threat the [Wikipedia] brand has seen to date" [2].
Lila had taken the first technical / automation /AI steps to identify / weed out the paid editing claques which rule the roost. That she was eased out in this way shows that WMF is in terminal disrepair, and I resent Flo's attempt to deflect this thread away from the numerous paid editing controversies which have dogged the projects since the very beginning and systematically driven away all competent potential long-term contributors.
At the risk of being unpopular, I suggest the long-term health of our projects require that its not about empowering our volunteers but about regulating them.
David
[1]
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/20/roger_bamkin_gibraltor_s_...
[2] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/20/wikimedia_uk_scandal/
On 2/29/16, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
Two distinct issues, I think:
- about improving community representation in power structures, I
think we
have to think more about what representation we want and what structures would accomplish it. I have no answers but think we should consider
looking
beyond WMF alone:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082703.html
- about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively: I'll have
mostly tech-focused thoughts on that because that's where my expertise
is,
so you need to hear from other people who interact with a wider set of volunteers than patch contributors and the people who manage to figure
out
our feedback systems. :) whether that should be funded by / staffed
within
WMF or our other movement orgs or both is an open question.
-- brion On Feb 28, 2016 11:51 AM, "David Cuenca Tudela" dacuetu@gmail.com
wrote:
Brion, so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the
WMF
as a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about other roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant
making.
So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there should be more power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater focus in empowering volunteers? How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the
direction of
the movement? And how to offer volunteers the opportunity to become
more
dedicated without paying them directly?
Cheers Micru
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:03 PM, David Emrany david.emrany@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Brion
When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia
Have we forgotten so soon the adverse media publicity about these stealth PR campaigns
"Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it's no longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It's just another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products" [1]
"payment of money to Wikipedia editors represented "the greatest threat the [Wikipedia] brand has seen to date" [2].
Lila had taken the first technical / automation /AI steps to identify / weed out the paid editing claques which rule the roost. That she was eased out in this way shows that WMF is in terminal disrepair, and I resent Flo's attempt to deflect this thread away from the numerous paid editing controversies which have dogged the projects since the very beginning and systematically driven away all competent potential long-term contributors.
Sure, there is technical/automation/AI work that's being done. It's not being done by Lila, it's being done by Aaron Halfaker, who can provide his own opinion on whether he feels that work has been adequately resourced (in other words whether it's something the people who determine resourcing can get much credit for, beyond allowing it to exist).
It has nothing to do with paid editing: at the moment it identifies whether something is likely to be reverted, whether it is likely to have been made in good faith, or whether it is likely to be vandalism.
Is there some other AI work being done that you're referring to?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org