My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing is slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in our projects.
In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of decrease of admins on enwp, and some likewise tendency on dewp. Is this a sign that the "good" powers are losing out to the "bad" ones?
I also seen a very passive response to two massPOV editing . One, on 35 versions, is related to Hans Asperger, to state he was a nazi doctor (false, even if he was somewhat passive in some cases). Here dewp reacted quickly and after a while enwp, so these articles are OK, but in most of the other 35 this false info lies unchanged. Also I react to the effort from GazProm promoting their propaganda article /Football for Friendship / in up to 80 version, and where almost noone has neutralized it.
Are we slowly losing the battle against the "evil" forces? And if so, is then our new strategy (being good in itself) and the plan to implement it all too naive? For example I like very much the ambition to help out on areas in the world where Wikipedia etc is not established, but would it be more correct to put effort in regaining control of the very many Wikipedia versions, that is definitely degenerating and we are loosing what has been done on these. (as a test look at "latest changes" on some of the versions with low editing, it is depressing to see that there often are more vandal editing, not being undone, then proper new material)
Would it be most appropriate if we all in a 2-3 years effort concentrated on getting (back) control on our material in our projects, before we start efforts in implementing the strategy we have agreed upon. Perhaps a number of paid admins, vandal/pov fighters, about as many as there are stewards today, would be necessary not to lose out.
Anders
//
Hoi, You compare two things that are not related and where there is a conflict of interest. As it is, we are severely lacking in information in many of our Wikipedias. Given that not even percent of the humans in Wikidata is from Africa, the #AfricaGap is bigger than the #GenderGap (no percent vs 16/17% of humans). This gets us into issues about English Wikipedia administration versus what it covers and how we can get people to write about for instance Africa and Gender.
Your interest of keeping up with vandalism and the fight against massive POV pushing, paid editing is something else altogether. I have no interest at all in your struggles, I will not volunteer to become an admin. I find that admins do and what I would expect from them is incompatible with what I want to spend time on. The aggression in many conversations I have come across makes me cringe.
When you want to improve issues that have to do with vandalism, POV, there are possibilities in tooling. One partial solution that I have in mind would improve the quality in articles, makes it obvious where there is a difference allowing for more focus. The point/problem is that this will not be specific to any one Wikipedia, it will show differences between projects and consequently it is not specifically a tool with a focus on POV pushing. With sufficient UI attention it may get more of the focus you are seeking.
As you seek control of our data, quality is king, it is what we should build upon. When you seek to exclude the interest of others over your own, I would hate to see you succeed. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 May 2018 at 11:59, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing is slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in our projects.
In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of decrease of admins on enwp, and some likewise tendency on dewp. Is this a sign that the "good" powers are losing out to the "bad" ones?
I also seen a very passive response to two massPOV editing . One, on 35 versions, is related to Hans Asperger, to state he was a nazi doctor (false, even if he was somewhat passive in some cases). Here dewp reacted quickly and after a while enwp, so these articles are OK, but in most of the other 35 this false info lies unchanged. Also I react to the effort from GazProm promoting their propaganda article /Football for Friendship / in up to 80 version, and where almost noone has neutralized it.
Are we slowly losing the battle against the "evil" forces? And if so, is then our new strategy (being good in itself) and the plan to implement it all too naive? For example I like very much the ambition to help out on areas in the world where Wikipedia etc is not established, but would it be more correct to put effort in regaining control of the very many Wikipedia versions, that is definitely degenerating and we are loosing what has been done on these. (as a test look at "latest changes" on some of the versions with low editing, it is depressing to see that there often are more vandal editing, not being undone, then proper new material)
Would it be most appropriate if we all in a 2-3 years effort concentrated on getting (back) control on our material in our projects, before we start efforts in implementing the strategy we have agreed upon. Perhaps a number of paid admins, vandal/pov fighters, about as many as there are stewards today, would be necessary not to lose out.
Anders
//
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
... about the classical employer-employee relationship, I am totally against it. The reason is that there is so much effort wasted tracking and keeping people accountable
Priyanka Mandikal implemented a way to keep paid editors accountable using reputation tracking two years ago:
https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/
Accountability is calculated as an agreement ratio between reviewers:
https://github.com/priyankamandikal/arowf/blob/master/app.py#L462
...that is not the basis for a healthy relationship for a Wikimedia volunteer
Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia?
the will to cooperate in our mission should have precedence over the will to make a profit out of it
Does that exclude the financially disadvantaged?
Best regards, Jim
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 5:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You compare two things that are not related and where there is a conflict of interest. As it is, we are severely lacking in information in many of our Wikipedias. Given that not even percent of the humans in Wikidata is from Africa, the #AfricaGap is bigger than the #GenderGap (no percent vs 16/17% of humans). This gets us into issues about English Wikipedia administration versus what it covers and how we can get people to write about for instance Africa and Gender.
Your interest of keeping up with vandalism and the fight against massive POV pushing, paid editing is something else altogether. I have no interest at all in your struggles, I will not volunteer to become an admin. I find that admins do and what I would expect from them is incompatible with what I want to spend time on. The aggression in many conversations I have come across makes me cringe.
When you want to improve issues that have to do with vandalism, POV, there are possibilities in tooling. One partial solution that I have in mind would improve the quality in articles, makes it obvious where there is a difference allowing for more focus. The point/problem is that this will not be specific to any one Wikipedia, it will show differences between projects and consequently it is not specifically a tool with a focus on POV pushing. With sufficient UI attention it may get more of the focus you are seeking.
As you seek control of our data, quality is king, it is what we should build upon. When you seek to exclude the interest of others over your own, I would hate to see you succeed. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 May 2018 at 11:59, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing is slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in our projects.
In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of decrease of admins on enwp, and some likewise tendency on dewp. Is this a sign that the "good" powers are losing out to the "bad" ones?
I also seen a very passive response to two massPOV editing . One, on 35 versions, is related to Hans Asperger, to state he was a nazi doctor (false, even if he was somewhat passive in some cases). Here dewp reacted quickly and after a while enwp, so these articles are OK, but in most of the other 35 this false info lies unchanged. Also I react to the effort from GazProm promoting their propaganda article /Football for Friendship / in up to 80 version, and where almost noone has neutralized it.
Are we slowly losing the battle against the "evil" forces? And if so, is then our new strategy (being good in itself) and the plan to implement it all too naive? For example I like very much the ambition to help out on areas in the world where Wikipedia etc is not established, but would it be more correct to put effort in regaining control of the very many Wikipedia versions, that is definitely degenerating and we are loosing what has been done on these. (as a test look at "latest changes" on some of the versions with low editing, it is depressing to see that there often are more vandal editing, not being undone, then proper new material)
Would it be most appropriate if we all in a 2-3 years effort concentrated on getting (back) control on our material in our projects, before we start efforts in implementing the strategy we have agreed upon. Perhaps a number of paid admins, vandal/pov fighters, about as many as there are stewards today, would be necessary not to lose out.
Anders
//
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:16 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia?
There is a difference, and that is the degree of professionalization. The role of admin is not a profession because there are no stablished bodies that have defined who is a professional admin and who is not. And still it would be difficult to professionalize since the distinction between volunteer/paid professional could make some people feel excluded (as in, "why is this person getting money for something I do for free?").
the will to cooperate in our mission should have precedence over the
will to make a profit out of it
Does that exclude the financially disadvantaged?
The wikimedia projects assume that you have time to spare without any compensation and that everybody can do the same. That is not true. In my view the wikimedia projects are already excluding the financially disadvantaged, because the people who are part of this project do not have the direct experience necessary to understand that their reality is not the same as the reality out there, and as a result they might find difficult to take the perspective of a person who needs the financial means in order to be able to contribute.
However, if the doors of generosity were open towards volunteers and flocks of people were attracted because of it, there wouldn't be enough resources for everyone, then how could I tell who deserves it most? I would follow a progressive approach by offering first little, and then more depending on how much the community appreciates the skills and involvement of this person in the mission. There are many ways to keep track of said appreciation, but writing encyclopedic articles about each community-supported volunteer (not on Wikipedia) could be very effective, also to create community bonds and to understand better the person behind the nickname.
If anything, we would remove the financial barrier that is keeping some (many?) people from contributing in the first place.
The thing is that a project like this should start small in order to learn from the experience what works socially/practically, and how it integrates conceptually into our worldview. I believe that it should be totally in the hands of the volunteer community, because appraisal of every day tasks can only be done if you are involved in the project and understand the challenges, the tasks, the pitfalls, and what it means to do a good job. For instance I normally review property proposals for creation in Wikidata, it requires a set of skills and dedication that only the handful of people who understand the challenge could evaluate. And there is more, how do you evaluate the time spent building community and creating a good atmosphere unless you are part of it?
I appreciate your questions because they are very interesting to examine. Regarding the reputation tracking system I assume that it would only work for the restricted use-case of direct article editing (cf. exopedianism), but not for the whole range of tasks that volunteers perform. In any case, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Regards, Micru
Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia?
There is a difference, and that is the degree of professionalization. The role of admin is not a profession because there are no stablished bodies that have defined who is a professional admin and who is not.
I'm not sure that's true. Whether it started as a game of Nomic or not, almost all of the admins have been elected through a certainly established process.
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:16 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia?
There is a difference, and that is the degree of professionalization. The role of admin is not a profession because there are no stablished bodies that have defined who is a professional admin and who is not. And still it would be difficult to professionalize since the distinction between volunteer/paid professional could make some people feel excluded (as in, "why is this person getting money for something I do for free?").
the will to cooperate in our mission should have precedence over the
will to make a profit out of it
Does that exclude the financially disadvantaged?
The wikimedia projects assume that you have time to spare without any compensation and that everybody can do the same. That is not true. In my view the wikimedia projects are already excluding the financially disadvantaged, because the people who are part of this project do not have the direct experience necessary to understand that their reality is not the same as the reality out there, and as a result they might find difficult to take the perspective of a person who needs the financial means in order to be able to contribute.
However, if the doors of generosity were open towards volunteers and flocks of people were attracted because of it, there wouldn't be enough resources for everyone, then how could I tell who deserves it most? I would follow a progressive approach by offering first little, and then more depending on how much the community appreciates the skills and involvement of this person in the mission. There are many ways to keep track of said appreciation, but writing encyclopedic articles about each community-supported volunteer (not on Wikipedia) could be very effective, also to create community bonds and to understand better the person behind the nickname.
If anything, we would remove the financial barrier that is keeping some (many?) people from contributing in the first place.
The thing is that a project like this should start small in order to learn from the experience what works socially/practically, and how it integrates conceptually into our worldview. I believe that it should be totally in the hands of the volunteer community, because appraisal of every day tasks can only be done if you are involved in the project and understand the challenges, the tasks, the pitfalls, and what it means to do a good job. For instance I normally review property proposals for creation in Wikidata, it requires a set of skills and dedication that only the handful of people who understand the challenge could evaluate. And there is more, how do you evaluate the time spent building community and creating a good atmosphere unless you are part of it?
I appreciate your questions because they are very interesting to examine. Regarding the reputation tracking system I assume that it would only work for the restricted use-case of direct article editing (cf. exopedianism), but not for the whole range of tasks that volunteers perform. In any case, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that's true. Whether it started as a game of Nomic or not, almost all of the admins have been elected through a certainly established process.
That someone does an activity or that this person has been elected to perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It might be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about "profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training, ethics regulation, and licensing.
In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel that the main need is talent retention while keeping the volunteer-driven spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.
From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views. After
this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it happen.
I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this mailing list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone reading this message to at least join this conversation.
Regards, Micru
My own reflection reading this discussion is that there is a difference between vandalism and POV pushing.
For vandalism we have better routines in place and also tools like ORES, and also a system of steward who can acts in cases of crosswikivandals
For Pov pushing and especially cross wiki POV pushing we have no routines in place, and no roles like he steward who can help out for these cases.
I also have only positive experience interacting with stewards, both in their willingness to help and alertness. And they have a very good tone in conversations. And they are a bit separated from the communities.
And my loose thought in the end of my starting mail, was more to be open to having paid something like POV-stewards who can get involved in tough POVedits. And that these can offload the burden on admin when things getting nasty
I am not a supporter of paid editors, and think it would be too controversial having paid administrators.
Anders
Den 2018-05-26 kl. 09:38, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that's true. Whether it started as a game of Nomic or not, almost all of the admins have been elected through a certainly established process.
That someone does an activity or that this person has been elected to perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It might be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about "profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training, ethics regulation, and licensing.
In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel that the main need is talent retention while keeping the volunteer-driven spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.
From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views. After this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it happen.
I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this mailing list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone reading this message to at least join this conversation.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
it would be too controversial having paid administrators.
Controversial for who? So far nobody stepped into this conversation to say that direct support of community members with community money is not ok for whatever reason they might have.
Regards, Micru
On Sat, 26 May 2018, 10:35 Anders Wennersten, mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
My own reflection reading this discussion is that there is a difference between vandalism and POV pushing.
For vandalism we have better routines in place and also tools like ORES, and also a system of steward who can acts in cases of crosswikivandals
For Pov pushing and especially cross wiki POV pushing we have no routines in place, and no roles like he steward who can help out for these cases.
I also have only positive experience interacting with stewards, both in their willingness to help and alertness. And they have a very good tone in conversations. And they are a bit separated from the communities.
And my loose thought in the end of my starting mail, was more to be open to having paid something like POV-stewards who can get involved in tough POVedits. And that these can offload the burden on admin when things getting nasty
I am not a supporter of paid editors, and think it would be too controversial having paid administrators.
Anders
Den 2018-05-26 kl. 09:38, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not sure that's true. Whether it started as a game of Nomic or not, almost all of the admins have been elected through a certainly established process.
That someone does an activity or that this person has been elected to perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It
might
be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about "profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training, ethics regulation, and licensing.
In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel that the main need is talent retention while keeping the volunteer-driven spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.
From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views. After this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it happen.
I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this
mailing
list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone reading this message to at least join this conversation.
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Having paid admins would shift the WMF or an affiliate in to being legally responsible for the content on Wikipedia, it would also potentailly expose those editors to additional issue in their own countries, or during their travel
On 26 May 2018 at 17:52, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
it would be too controversial having paid administrators.
Controversial for who? So far nobody stepped into this conversation to say that direct support of community members with community money is not ok for whatever reason they might have.
Regards, Micru
On Sat, 26 May 2018, 10:35 Anders Wennersten, mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
My own reflection reading this discussion is that there is a difference between vandalism and POV pushing.
For vandalism we have better routines in place and also tools like ORES, and also a system of steward who can acts in cases of crosswikivandals
For Pov pushing and especially cross wiki POV pushing we have no routines in place, and no roles like he steward who can help out for these cases.
I also have only positive experience interacting with stewards, both in their willingness to help and alertness. And they have a very good tone in conversations. And they are a bit separated from the communities.
And my loose thought in the end of my starting mail, was more to be open to having paid something like POV-stewards who can get involved in tough POVedits. And that these can offload the burden on admin when things getting nasty
I am not a supporter of paid editors, and think it would be too controversial having paid administrators.
Anders
Den 2018-05-26 kl. 09:38, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not sure that's true. Whether it started as a game of Nomic or not, almost all of the admins have been elected through a certainly established process.
That someone does an activity or that this person has been elected to perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It
might
be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about "profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training, ethics regulation, and licensing.
In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel that the main need is talent retention while keeping the
volunteer-driven
spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.
From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views.
After
this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved
and
see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the community, then request to the community the necessary action to make
it
happen.
I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this
mailing
list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone
reading
this message to at least join this conversation.
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I have the feeling that we need to clarify what it means to be a "paid admin" vs a "community-supported volunteer".
In my definition, a "paid admin" is a person who receives a salary to perform a delimited function not necessarily aligned with his/her will. There is a contractual obligation where a organization is paying the person in exchange of some tasks. Which is basically the definition of a job.
On the other hand I see a "community-supported volunteer" as a volunteer who receives a grant/donation to be able to support himself/herself while doing whatever he/she feels like doing in the project (with oversight of the community), which normally are core activities that cannot be bundled up in a "project grant".
Do these definitions make the distinction clear?
Gnangarra, given those definitions, could you please explain how giving a grant/donation to a person shifts the WMF or an affiliate to being legally responsible for the actions of this person? As I see it if I make a donation to a person I am not responsible for their actions, but I might be wrong. And in which way would that expose them in their countries?
I would also like to express my gratitude to you for participating in this conversation with a simple thank you.
Regards, Micru
every grant from the WMF or affiliates have fixed metrics/kpi(key performance indicators) to ensure the grabt is doing what it set out to do, failing to do that would negatively impact its charity status.
on the legal side the issue is centered around whether the wmf has any editorial oversight, even by giving grants or donations that specifically focus on the performance of admin/sysop functions of individuals it could be consider as taking such a role.
for the individuals sadly volunteers within the community have already experienced the dark side of what it is to be a wikimedian, to step that up to receiving some form of payment would potentially make people responsible for the content or seen as responsible putting them at greater risk.
On 26 May 2018 at 22:49, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
I have the feeling that we need to clarify what it means to be a "paid admin" vs a "community-supported volunteer".
In my definition, a "paid admin" is a person who receives a salary to perform a delimited function not necessarily aligned with his/her will. There is a contractual obligation where a organization is paying the person in exchange of some tasks. Which is basically the definition of a job.
On the other hand I see a "community-supported volunteer" as a volunteer who receives a grant/donation to be able to support himself/herself while doing whatever he/she feels like doing in the project (with oversight of the community), which normally are core activities that cannot be bundled up in a "project grant".
Do these definitions make the distinction clear?
Gnangarra, given those definitions, could you please explain how giving a grant/donation to a person shifts the WMF or an affiliate to being legally responsible for the actions of this person? As I see it if I make a donation to a person I am not responsible for their actions, but I might be wrong. And in which way would that expose them in their countries?
I would also like to express my gratitude to you for participating in this conversation with a simple thank you.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
1) The donations from the Wikimedia supporters do not have any strings attached, they are given in good faith with no expectations of anything back. There are many charities that donate to the WMF without any fixed metrics/kpi about what the WMF is doing with the money. Given these two precedents it seems possible in my view to donate money either as an individual or as an organization to another individual/organization without expecting anything from them. And I do not have any information about that fact having a negative impact on any charity organisation that has donated to the WMF in the past. Can you please explain how it would affect negatively the impact status of the WMF or any affiliate if they would donate money with no conditions attached?
2) Can you cite any legal precedent where given donations was considered as taking any kind of role?
3) How is that different from the risk that volunteers are already facing? Do you have any example of a volunteer suffering consequences by receiving a grant from the WMF?
Regards, Micru
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:19 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
every grant from the WMF or affiliates have fixed metrics/kpi(key performance indicators) to ensure the grabt is doing what it set out to do, failing to do that would negatively impact its charity status.
on the legal side the issue is centered around whether the wmf has any editorial oversight, even by giving grants or donations that specifically focus on the performance of admin/sysop functions of individuals it could be consider as taking such a role.
for the individuals sadly volunteers within the community have already experienced the dark side of what it is to be a wikimedian, to step that up to receiving some form of payment would potentially make people responsible for the content or seen as responsible putting them at greater risk.
On 26 May 2018 at 22:49, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
I have the feeling that we need to clarify what it means to be a "paid admin" vs a "community-supported volunteer".
In my definition, a "paid admin" is a person who receives a salary to perform a delimited function not necessarily aligned with his/her will. There is a contractual obligation where a organization is paying the
person
in exchange of some tasks. Which is basically the definition of a job.
On the other hand I see a "community-supported volunteer" as a volunteer who receives a grant/donation to be able to support himself/herself while doing whatever he/she feels like doing in the project (with oversight of the community), which normally are core activities that cannot be bundled up in a "project grant".
Do these definitions make the distinction clear?
Gnangarra, given those definitions, could you please explain how giving a grant/donation to a person shifts the WMF or an affiliate to being
legally
responsible for the actions of this person? As I see it if I make a donation to a person I am not responsible for their actions, but I might
be
wrong. And in which way would that expose them in their countries?
I would also like to express my gratitude to you for participating in
this
conversation with a simple thank you.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again- reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8 . _______________________________________________ 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
I am open to more input, and more exchange of views.
My view is that the Foundation was suddenly (but not without warning) made legally responsible for its own content after Trump made hosting providers responsible for facilitating online prostitution advertising, at pretty much the same time the GDPR went in to effect. The Foundation has frequently tried a number of paid editing trials, and I think that's a good thing because donors are likely to stabilize at paying enough to pay all the past, present, and future wikipedias a very comfortable hourly rate, plus interest, still have a large and swiftly endowment to figure out how to invest responsibly, and will be able to outfit offline applications such as space hotels with a new LCARS skin I am trying to get Mike Okuda to commission.
After this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it happen.
I think the Foundation employees know I support them. I recently asked their boss to make sure they are able to afford the median SF home capable of bird ranching. For the record, I think most crucial tech employees in Norcal are not paid what they are actually worth, because then they would have greater labor mobility. This has come about after attempts at colluding in no-poaching agreements and needs to be corrected. The Foundation needs to take the lead on lowering their income inequality by raising employee salaries. (As the topic has included appropriate use of donor funds.)
Best regards, Jim
My view is that the Foundation was suddenly (but not without warning) made legally responsible for its own content after Trump made hosting providers responsible for facilitating online prostitution advertising, at pretty much the same time the GDPR went in to effect.
I do not know enough about the bill to comment on this. I can say that even if the Foundation was made legally responsible for the content, in general the level of care and attention to detail seems to be quite high in most Wikipedias.
The Foundation has frequently tried a number of paid editing trials,
Can you please point to me where to find them? Has been tried before donating directly to volunteers with no strings attached?
and I think that's a good thing because donors are likely to stabilize at paying enough to pay all the past, present, and future wikipedias a very comfortable hourly rate, plus interest, still have a large and swiftly endowment to figure out how to invest responsibly, and will be able to outfit offline applications such as space hotels with a new LCARS skin I am trying to get Mike Okuda to commission.
Realistically the money is always tight, however even with a limited amount of money it is still possible to do nice things for volunteers or at least for some of them. The Star Trek aspect of this shouldn't be fancy ideas about the future, but realistic ones like enabling volunteers to follow their passion, freeing them from work whenever possible, supporting them in the mission, and joining efforts with other non-profit organizations to create a favorable social climate.
I think the Foundation employees...
Here I was referring mainly to volunteers, specially those who take a heavy burden on their shoulders individually. It can be argued whether WMF employees are receiving enough generosity from the Foundation or not, what is clear is that employees already receive *some* generosity. On the other hand volunteers receive no direct generosity, unless they find other activities that qualify to apply for a grant. That in my opinion conveys the message that if you are a volunteer you don't deserve to be taken care of by the community just by doing what you are doing, which in my opinion is a very negative message that we are giving to volunteers, donors, and to society in general.
Kind regards, Micru
I think thats a little disingenuous to say that we dont take care of our volunteers and that its a negative message to not give some financial reward to admins.
We came here by choice, whether we are here for a long time or a short time we chose to add to the sum of all knowledge for myriad of reasons. Some of us choose to accept additional functions to support what we are creating, whether thats to clean up the projects or reach out to new contributors. Over the last 13 years I've brought books to access sources, cameras to provide photographs, I've spent 1000's of hours travelling at my own expense to get photos, to talk to people, to encourage them to bring more knowledge onto wikipedia. Yes I've benefited along the way, I made wonderful friends, I been to places I wouldnt have got the opportunity to go to, I learnt a lot of amazing things and in my own way I'd like to think I've made a lasting difference. Actually I know that everyone else like me has combined to make a difference, I've been privileged to see wikipedia in use in class rooms helping students to learn, I've seen it used on social media to answer questions and in real life to do the same thing.
I've seen how people with disabilities can be a part of a community where those disabilities dont define that person, I've seen how oppressed minorities have been lifted up just by seeing their culture included and being able to add to that without fear or repercussions.
Every volunteer gets rewarded for what they do, when we shift to paying a person they stop being volunteers in that aspect of what they do. The best reward the WMF could give is not cash, its helping more people experience the in person connections and give them a greater sense of just how magnificent this community really is through access to events, scholarships, and other opportunities.
Never in all my time have I ever thought, or experienced anything that remotely looks like the Wikimedia Community doesnt value what the volunteers do, even when contributors push the envelope in negative ways.
On 28 May 2018 at 16:03, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
My view is that the Foundation was suddenly (but not without warning) made legally responsible for its own content after Trump made hosting providers responsible for facilitating online prostitution advertising, at pretty much the same time the GDPR went in to effect.
I do not know enough about the bill to comment on this. I can say that even if the Foundation was made legally responsible for the content, in general the level of care and attention to detail seems to be quite high in most Wikipedias.
The Foundation has frequently tried a number of paid editing trials,
Can you please point to me where to find them? Has been tried before donating directly to volunteers with no strings attached?
and I think that's a good thing because donors are likely to stabilize at paying enough to pay all the past, present, and future wikipedias a very comfortable hourly rate, plus interest, still have a large and swiftly endowment to figure out how to invest responsibly, and will be able to outfit offline applications such as space hotels with a new LCARS skin I am trying to get Mike Okuda to commission.
Realistically the money is always tight, however even with a limited amount of money it is still possible to do nice things for volunteers or at least for some of them. The Star Trek aspect of this shouldn't be fancy ideas about the future, but realistic ones like enabling volunteers to follow their passion, freeing them from work whenever possible, supporting them in the mission, and joining efforts with other non-profit organizations to create a favorable social climate.
I think the Foundation employees...
Here I was referring mainly to volunteers, specially those who take a heavy burden on their shoulders individually. It can be argued whether WMF employees are receiving enough generosity from the Foundation or not, what is clear is that employees already receive *some* generosity. On the other hand volunteers receive no direct generosity, unless they find other activities that qualify to apply for a grant. That in my opinion conveys the message that if you are a volunteer you don't deserve to be taken care of by the community just by doing what you are doing, which in my opinion is a very negative message that we are giving to volunteers, donors, and to society in general.
Kind 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards the community and that is laudable. As you, over the years I have also spent countless hours in this community, and I do not regret it either, I feel it has been and it still is a good investment of my time, and my dedication. You, as me, are able to do all that because we are not financially disadvantaged. You are not in need of any donation, you can do what you are doing without support and that is great. However that you do not need those resources does not mean that other people might not need them.
Every volunteer can work in this community as long as their material needs are covered. If they cannot support themselves, we leave them to their own devices. That is totally opposite to cultivating a sense of community. In that regard I do not consider my comment disingenuous, but a reflection of what is common practice now. In my view if the community has resources, and a member of the community (more specifically, a dedicated member) needs them, then the community also should be generous with them, so that they don't have to leave.
When I imagine what would be my ideal case scenario, I would also avoid giving disadvantaged volunteers money, I would give them food and a place to stay instead, but since that is even harder to materialize (at least at this point of time given the geographic dispersion and lack of real estate), I feel that donating resources to volunteers (that in turn have been donated, remember that) is a good idea to further the sense of community.
I'm confused by your comment, can you please explain what makes you think that by donating to volunteers "they stop being volunteers in that aspect of what they do"?
Regards, Micru
Hoi, Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop? Is it only for admins and if so why and, is it only for English Wikipedia and if so why? Thanks, GerardM
On 28 May 2018 at 15:48, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards the community and that is laudable. As you, over the years I have also spent countless hours in this community, and I do not regret it either, I feel it has been and it still is a good investment of my time, and my dedication. You, as me, are able to do all that because we are not financially disadvantaged. You are not in need of any donation, you can do what you are doing without support and that is great. However that you do not need those resources does not mean that other people might not need them.
Every volunteer can work in this community as long as their material needs are covered. If they cannot support themselves, we leave them to their own devices. That is totally opposite to cultivating a sense of community. In that regard I do not consider my comment disingenuous, but a reflection of what is common practice now. In my view if the community has resources, and a member of the community (more specifically, a dedicated member) needs them, then the community also should be generous with them, so that they don't have to leave.
When I imagine what would be my ideal case scenario, I would also avoid giving disadvantaged volunteers money, I would give them food and a place to stay instead, but since that is even harder to materialize (at least at this point of time given the geographic dispersion and lack of real estate), I feel that donating resources to volunteers (that in turn have been donated, remember that) is a good idea to further the sense of community.
I'm confused by your comment, can you please explain what makes you think that by donating to volunteers "they stop being volunteers in that aspect of what they do"?
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop?
First of all I must say that what I might say as an answer to those questions reflects my understanding of this topic now, which is different than when the conversation started, and that it will be different when more questions like these arise, or when more input is given, or when what I say is being challenged.
As I see it now, specially after the input by Pine, the system should not rely on donations from the WMF only. Volunteers should have their own individual way to develop a relationship with their donors in order to feel free. The WMF might be part of this, either directly supporting individual volunteers, or by supporting an affiliate that would administer funds on behalf of the WMF and other major donors.
You ask "where does it stop?" and my interpretation is that the capacity both to enable volunteers to accept donations, and to donors to support them should be built organically over time. It is unrealistic to think that we can suddenly open the system for everyone, it has to be built progressively. Remember also that, from the input by Yaroslav, it is important that volunteers are enabled to accept donations with the condition that they develop personal faculties, like the ability to listen, humbleness, and general understanding of the situation of the community and their own. This takes time, and requires a kind of social structure that needs to be built from scratch to facilitate the goal.
Regarding if it is only for admins or not, well, my understanding at the moment is that there are tasks that require considerable personal energy and dedication that is in short supply. There are also tasks that fulfill a structural function in the community, and that are not valued as such. I feel that for the first stage of this initiative volunteers should self-assess how their work affects other members of the "working community", that is the community of editors who perform tasks in the projects. Be it in direct tasks like maintenance, or social tasks like mediation. I consider that in general admins satisfy these criteria, but of course, as always, there are many grey zones that should be considered carefully on a case by case basis. If this initiative would progress and would be successful, I imagine that volunteers that work for the broader reading/data consuming community should also be considered eventually. However, as said, I would prefer to start small to build understanding, capacity, and empowerment where it has the biggest impact first, and expand as conditions allow.
is it only for English Wikipedia and if so why?
In my opinion, no. I consider myself a global volunteer of the Wikimedia movement and as such I care for all volunteers in every project. I consider that every Wikimedian deserves my attention, and my work to enable them to be successful in whatever project they are working on (one of the reasons why these days I am more involved in Wikidata). The reality is, however, that en-wiki attracts the most attention from readers/donors because it has established itself as a common ground for the whole planet. We could argue if this is healthy or not, but it is the reality right now and we should live with it while we find more inclusive approaches. Once said that, I do consider that en-wiki should be given the attention that it deserves, while considering smaller projects that also need this kind of approach.
Regards, Micru
I fully support Micrus summary and comments, I see it them very up to the point I raised in my first input in this thread.
And while I see this as a general problem for all versions/projects, I can see that a start on enwp would make sense. It has the biggest number of edits but also being the one where the "gains" to enter skewed info is very much the highest, making the pressure on admins when neutralizing being the toughest.
For the model now being discussed I see it as comparable to "Wikipedian in Residence", perhaps like "Admins (patrollers) financially supported by a Community".
Anders
Den 2018-06-01 kl. 10:51, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop?
First of all I must say that what I might say as an answer to those questions reflects my understanding of this topic now, which is different than when the conversation started, and that it will be different when more questions like these arise, or when more input is given, or when what I say is being challenged.
As I see it now, specially after the input by Pine, the system should not rely on donations from the WMF only. Volunteers should have their own individual way to develop a relationship with their donors in order to feel free. The WMF might be part of this, either directly supporting individual volunteers, or by supporting an affiliate that would administer funds on behalf of the WMF and other major donors.
You ask "where does it stop?" and my interpretation is that the capacity both to enable volunteers to accept donations, and to donors to support them should be built organically over time. It is unrealistic to think that we can suddenly open the system for everyone, it has to be built progressively. Remember also that, from the input by Yaroslav, it is important that volunteers are enabled to accept donations with the condition that they develop personal faculties, like the ability to listen, humbleness, and general understanding of the situation of the community and their own. This takes time, and requires a kind of social structure that needs to be built from scratch to facilitate the goal.
Regarding if it is only for admins or not, well, my understanding at the moment is that there are tasks that require considerable personal energy and dedication that is in short supply. There are also tasks that fulfill a structural function in the community, and that are not valued as such. I feel that for the first stage of this initiative volunteers should self-assess how their work affects other members of the "working community", that is the community of editors who perform tasks in the projects. Be it in direct tasks like maintenance, or social tasks like mediation. I consider that in general admins satisfy these criteria, but of course, as always, there are many grey zones that should be considered carefully on a case by case basis. If this initiative would progress and would be successful, I imagine that volunteers that work for the broader reading/data consuming community should also be considered eventually. However, as said, I would prefer to start small to build understanding, capacity, and empowerment where it has the biggest impact first, and expand as conditions allow.
is it only for English Wikipedia and if so why?
In my opinion, no. I consider myself a global volunteer of the Wikimedia movement and as such I care for all volunteers in every project. I consider that every Wikimedian deserves my attention, and my work to enable them to be successful in whatever project they are working on (one of the reasons why these days I am more involved in Wikidata). The reality is, however, that en-wiki attracts the most attention from readers/donors because it has established itself as a common ground for the whole planet. We could argue if this is healthy or not, but it is the reality right now and we should live with it while we find more inclusive approaches. Once said that, I do consider that en-wiki should be given the attention that it deserves, while considering smaller projects that also need this kind of approach.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I thank my colleagues for this valuable discussion.
Here are a few more thoughts from my end:
* While my efforts for the next few months will focus on new contributors, the issues with administrative backlogs, COI patrolling and investigations, and a myriad of other issues which "mid-career" or relatively "senior" Wikimedians are better suited to address are also on my mind. I hope that if we can increase the retention of new contributors that some of these people will remain long enough and become skillful enough to take on some of the administrative work. I plan to research the effectiveness of my work with new editors, including measures of the longevity and productivity of people who use the resources that I develop, and my guess is that Mark Miller will do the same, so there will likely be reports about the effects of our (or at least my) work during 2018-2019 that will focus on new Wikimedians but also look at long-term measures of success.
* WMF is planning to study what it calls "movement organizers" during its 2018-2019 Annual Plan, as a part of its Audiences work https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2018-2019/Audiences#Outcome_1:_Progressive_Onboarding. The WMF AP currently says, "The goal of this study is to develop a shared understanding of and investment in the needs of movement organizers at the Wikimedia Foundation and in the Wikimedia movement, to ensure that this strategic audience gets the support it needs to grow the Wikimedia community. The milestone for this project will be a public report on the research findings, including movement organizers personas to inform future work in community outreach and software development. The report will offer recommendations for further work to help movement organizers to succeed."
* Regarding fundraising for non-WMF financial support of Wikimedians, I hope to meet with Micru about this subject in July. I imagine that we will share further updates when we have finished setting up the logistics. From my perspective, this meeting doesn't need to be confidential, so anyone who is civil would be welcome to participate. This is a long term project, and I suggest that we have very moderate expectations for the foreseeable future.
Regards,
Enwp may also be the most resistant project to having people paid to do admin work. Has the concept ever been discussed on enwp? If so, when and where, and what was the consensus if any? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anders Wennersten Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 1:36 PM To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?
I fully support Micrus summary and comments, I see it them very up to the point I raised in my first input in this thread.
And while I see this as a general problem for all versions/projects, I can see that a start on enwp would make sense. It has the biggest number of edits but also being the one where the "gains" to enter skewed info is very much the highest, making the pressure on admins when neutralizing being the toughest.
For the model now being discussed I see it as comparable to "Wikipedian in Residence", perhaps like "Admins (patrollers) financially supported by a Community".
Anders
Den 2018-06-01 kl. 10:51, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop?
First of all I must say that what I might say as an answer to those questions reflects my understanding of this topic now, which is different than when the conversation started, and that it will be different when more questions like these arise, or when more input is given, or when what I say is being challenged.
As I see it now, specially after the input by Pine, the system should not rely on donations from the WMF only. Volunteers should have their own individual way to develop a relationship with their donors in order to feel free. The WMF might be part of this, either directly supporting individual volunteers, or by supporting an affiliate that would administer funds on behalf of the WMF and other major donors.
You ask "where does it stop?" and my interpretation is that the capacity both to enable volunteers to accept donations, and to donors to support them should be built organically over time. It is unrealistic to think that we can suddenly open the system for everyone, it has to be built progressively. Remember also that, from the input by Yaroslav, it is important that volunteers are enabled to accept donations with the condition that they develop personal faculties, like the ability to listen, humbleness, and general understanding of the situation of the community and their own. This takes time, and requires a kind of social structure that needs to be built from scratch to facilitate the goal.
Regarding if it is only for admins or not, well, my understanding at the moment is that there are tasks that require considerable personal energy and dedication that is in short supply. There are also tasks that fulfill a structural function in the community, and that are not valued as such. I feel that for the first stage of this initiative volunteers should self-assess how their work affects other members of the "working community", that is the community of editors who perform tasks in the projects. Be it in direct tasks like maintenance, or social tasks like mediation. I consider that in general admins satisfy these criteria, but of course, as always, there are many grey zones that should be considered carefully on a case by case basis. If this initiative would progress and would be successful, I imagine that volunteers that work for the broader reading/data consuming community should also be considered eventually. However, as said, I would prefer to start small to build understanding, capacity, and empowerment where it has the biggest impact first, and expand as conditions allow.
is it only for English Wikipedia and if so why?
In my opinion, no. I consider myself a global volunteer of the Wikimedia movement and as such I care for all volunteers in every project. I consider that every Wikimedian deserves my attention, and my work to enable them to be successful in whatever project they are working on (one of the reasons why these days I am more involved in Wikidata). The reality is, however, that en-wiki attracts the most attention from readers/donors because it has established itself as a common ground for the whole planet. We could argue if this is healthy or not, but it is the reality right now and we should live with it while we find more inclusive approaches. Once said that, I do consider that en-wiki should be given the attention that it deserves, while considering smaller projects that also need this kind of approach.
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
During this weekend I've been preparing a draft for a Global RFC intended for all admins of all Wikimedia projects. I would appreciate some input/copy-editing. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Micru/Draft_RFC
And the same for the draft invitation: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Micru/Draft_RFC_message
After comments/modifications I would like to translate both pages to as many languages as possible.
@Peter: I am aware that some members of every community might be resistant to this idea, and it is thanks to those people that the idea will keep evolving to address all concerns that may arise. Let's hope that many people are interested in participating!
Cheers, Micru
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Enwp may also be the most resistant project to having people paid to do admin work. Has the concept ever been discussed on enwp? If so, when and where, and what was the consensus if any? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anders Wennersten Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 1:36 PM To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?
I fully support Micrus summary and comments, I see it them very up to the point I raised in my first input in this thread.
And while I see this as a general problem for all versions/projects, I can see that a start on enwp would make sense. It has the biggest number of edits but also being the one where the "gains" to enter skewed info is very much the highest, making the pressure on admins when neutralizing being the toughest.
For the model now being discussed I see it as comparable to "Wikipedian in Residence", perhaps like "Admins (patrollers) financially supported by a Community".
Anders
Den 2018-06-01 kl. 10:51, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:
Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop?
First of all I must say that what I might say as an answer to those questions reflects my understanding of this topic now, which is different than when the conversation started, and that it will be different when
more
questions like these arise, or when more input is given, or when what I
say
is being challenged.
As I see it now, specially after the input by Pine, the system should not rely on donations from the WMF only. Volunteers should have their own individual way to develop a relationship with their donors in order to
feel
free. The WMF might be part of this, either directly supporting
individual
volunteers, or by supporting an affiliate that would administer funds on behalf of the WMF and other major donors.
You ask "where does it stop?" and my interpretation is that the capacity both to enable volunteers to accept donations, and to donors to support them should be built organically over time. It is unrealistic to think
that
we can suddenly open the system for everyone, it has to be built progressively. Remember also that, from the input by Yaroslav, it is important that volunteers are enabled to accept donations with the condition that they develop personal faculties, like the ability to
listen,
humbleness, and general understanding of the situation of the community
and
their own. This takes time, and requires a kind of social structure that needs to be built from scratch to facilitate the goal.
Regarding if it is only for admins or not, well, my understanding at the moment is that there are tasks that require considerable personal energy and dedication that is in short supply. There are also tasks that
fulfill a
structural function in the community, and that are not valued as such. I feel that for the first stage of this initiative volunteers should self-assess how their work affects other members of the "working community", that is the community of editors who perform tasks in the projects. Be it in direct tasks like maintenance, or social tasks like mediation. I consider that in general admins satisfy these criteria, but
of
course, as always, there are many grey zones that should be considered carefully on a case by case basis. If this initiative would progress and would be successful, I imagine that volunteers that work for the broader reading/data consuming community should also be considered eventually. However, as said, I would prefer to start small to build understanding, capacity, and empowerment where it has the biggest impact first, and
expand
as conditions allow.
is it only for English Wikipedia and if so why?
In my opinion, no. I consider myself a global volunteer of the Wikimedia movement and as such I care for all volunteers in every project. I
consider
that every Wikimedian deserves my attention, and my work to enable them
to
be successful in whatever project they are working on (one of the reasons why these days I am more involved in Wikidata). The reality is, however, that en-wiki attracts the most attention from readers/donors because it
has
established itself as a common ground for the whole planet. We could
argue
if this is healthy or not, but it is the reality right now and we should live with it while we find more inclusive approaches. Once said that, I
do
consider that en-wiki should be given the attention that it deserves,
while
considering smaller projects that also need this kind of approach.
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I am actually fully with Gnangarra here. I am also an unpaid volunteer who invested a lot of hours of my free time into various Wikimedia projects (and mostly getting a lot of shit in reward, but this is not the point now). I did have an experience of disagreements with people who were either paid chapter functionaries, or semi-paid - meaning they would have functionary friends and would be the first in line to get all kind of subsidies such as for example Wikimania travel scholarships. My experience is that I would always at some point back out. In the end of the day, I am pretty much professionally successful, I do not need to prove anything to myself or to anybody else, and at some point I would ask myself - whether this is really the best way to spend my free time by quarreling with people who clearly are not willing to listen to me. On the other hand, they were paid, and they were defending their point of view until the end just because of that. As soon as there are not many of them they can be ignored, or, if they become too harmful, they can be dealt with by the community. If we start getting a considerable share of paid contributors, who would be defending their output just because they need it to report for their salary - it will become impossible to work in Wikipedia for independent contributors.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 3:48 PM, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards the community and that is laudable. As you, over the years I have also spent countless hours in this community, and I do not regret it either, I feel it has been and it still is a good investment of my time, and my dedication. You, as me, are able to do all that because we are not financially disadvantaged. You are not in need of any donation, you can do what you are doing without support and that is great. However that you do not need those resources does not mean that other people might not need them.
Every volunteer can work in this community as long as their material needs are covered. If they cannot support themselves, we leave them to their own devices. That is totally opposite to cultivating a sense of community. In that regard I do not consider my comment disingenuous, but a reflection of what is common practice now. In my view if the community has resources, and a member of the community (more specifically, a dedicated member) needs them, then the community also should be generous with them, so that they don't have to leave.
When I imagine what would be my ideal case scenario, I would also avoid giving disadvantaged volunteers money, I would give them food and a place to stay instead, but since that is even harder to materialize (at least at this point of time given the geographic dispersion and lack of real estate), I feel that donating resources to volunteers (that in turn have been donated, remember that) is a good idea to further the sense of community.
I'm confused by your comment, can you please explain what makes you think that by donating to volunteers "they stop being volunteers in that aspect of what they do"?
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hey Yaroslav, thanks for sharing your view. I find very interesting what you mention, and if you have experienced yourself it must be a real effect on people. Five years ago, when I was awarded an IEG grant, I didn't feel the same effect on me. In fact it was quite the opposite, I felt under pressure to be worthy of it, and I made an additional effort to make sure that all people I talked to felt listened. This is not easy, because it requires the will to understand what the other person is trying to say, and admit that they have a point. Of course this is just limited to my experience, but if there was a requirement to commit to listen empathically before receiving any kind of fund, perhaps the effect of feeling "superior" or "entitled" could be neutered.
One of the things that I appreciate most about our movement is the capacity to look deeply into potential pitfalls and to put safeguards against them. I see this here too. That something seems risky doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done, but it is necessary to discuss it thoroughly and see under which conditions it would be safe(r). And still, the experience is invaluable and can show whether the fears were justified or not, and from there, iterate and improve.
Now that I think about it, wouldn't it be wonderful if the incentive of the donation could be used as a way to ensure that the recipients are commited to train themselves in a set of values? For instance you mentioned one that is extremely important, the ability to listen, to make space for what the other person is saying, and to incorporate their view into the conversation. I think that there are more values that would be very welcome in our community, like easing the pressure on one another, calming arguments instead of fueling them, and in general ensuring that civility and harmony have priority above anything else. There must have been initiatives before to introduce these kind of values, but I am unable to find them. Any pointer would be appreciated.
You also mentioned "paid contributors, who would be defending their output just because they need it to report for their salary". As said before, I do not envision donations to volunteers as a "salary", but more as a token of appreciation from the community, while keeping the independence to act according to their will. I do not know which kind of mechanisms should be put in place for the community to make sure that only the right people would receive this kind of gratitude, however I doubt that they would be "reporting for their salary" (another kind of slavery), but instead interacting with the community normally and making sure that they behave excellently.
Thank you for digging deeper into this topic.
Regards, Micru
Hi Anders,
I hear your worries. Indeed it seems that resisting the push is taking more effort than what the community can take under the current circumstances, or at least it doesn't look sustainable (the RfA chart shown in the last Signpost [1] is really clear on that regard).
However, by providing different circumstances it could be feasible to keep the ground or even regain it. It seems to be the case that since people are editing in their free time, they do not have time for themselves to recover from the attrition and eventually they give up, or find something more fulfilling to do. In my case it has been like that. I started as Wikipedia editor, but over the years I have been changing roles, and now I do not have so much contact with Wikipedia as I used to have in the past.
You mentioned that paid roles would be helpful. I am concerned about how this would be implemented. If you were thinking about the classical employer-employee relationship, I am totally against it. The reason is that there is so much effort wasted tracking and keeping people accountable, that in the end the only thing keeping the relationship alive is money and statistics, and I feel that is not the basis for a healthy relationship for a Wikimedia *volunteer* (I highlight that because I feel that the will to cooperate in our mission should have precedence over the will to make a profit out of it).
It is also realistic to think that if I want a volunteer dedicated 100% to the mission, and I want to keep them on the project for their whole life, then I will have to free him somehow from the duties of making a living. Instead of paid roles, I would be more open to discussing the creation of a common fund that volunteers could administer themselves to cover their living expenses, partially or fully, depending on the resources.
In my opinion there should be options for everyone. Options for donating free time without expecting anything in exchange (already exists), options to be an employee for when it is difficult to find talent within the community (already exists), and options to allow the community to take care of the needs of volunteers (does not exist, grants are not given to a person, but to a project).
I'm looking forward to hearing more views on the topic.
Regards, Micru
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-05-24/Op-ed
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing is slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in our projects.
In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of decrease of admins on enwp, and some likewise tendency on dewp. Is this a sign that the "good" powers are losing out to the "bad" ones?
I also seen a very passive response to two massPOV editing . One, on 35 versions, is related to Hans Asperger, to state he was a nazi doctor (false, even if he was somewhat passive in some cases). Here dewp reacted quickly and after a while enwp, so these articles are OK, but in most of the other 35 this false info lies unchanged. Also I react to the effort from GazProm promoting their propaganda article /Football for Friendship / in up to 80 version, and where almost noone has neutralized it.
Are we slowly losing the battle against the "evil" forces? And if so, is then our new strategy (being good in itself) and the plan to implement it all too naive? For example I like very much the ambition to help out on areas in the world where Wikipedia etc is not established, but would it be more correct to put effort in regaining control of the very many Wikipedia versions, that is definitely degenerating and we are loosing what has been done on these. (as a test look at "latest changes" on some of the versions with low editing, it is depressing to see that there often are more vandal editing, not being undone, then proper new material)
Would it be most appropriate if we all in a 2-3 years effort concentrated on getting (back) control on our material in our projects, before we start efforts in implementing the strategy we have agreed upon. Perhaps a number of paid admins, vandal/pov fighters, about as many as there are stewards today, would be necessary not to lose out.
Anders
//
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thank you for this provocation, I share your concern. As a reader, it's disappointing to find material that looks like a press release, and intimidating to flag or edit without doing research into the editing history and editors involved. A quick, "back of the envelope" calculation I did recently shows an alarming level of paid editing, with 1,017 "Paid" status disclosures among en.wikipedia editors' user pages [1], which would amount to 1.4% of active editors if these numbers were directly comparable. This doesn't begin to account for any of the undisclosed paid editing that must be happening.
As a technical contributor, I can offer two concrete initiatives which might be helpful. Neither is a quick fix, but they offer spaces of resistance that we can build upon.
* The JADE project [2] will create a structured namespace for patrolling, and a talk namespace for coordinating work. You can think of it as an enhancement to the patrolled edit flag, where patrollers can provide their judgment in a format roughly equivalent to ORES predictions. We'll eventually use these judgments to improve our training for the ORES AIs, and our hope is that JADE will be integrated into tools like Huggle, to make communication between patrollers more explicit. JADE is available for experimentation on the Beta cluster [3], and we can move to the production wikis after we get some feedback from experienced editors, maybe after the upcoming Wikimania.
* We've also started work on an AI model to detect paid promotional editing, based on the overly optimistic puffery that's commonly deployed.[4] I'm excited about this approach, and once it's active we'll be able to make good estimates of the scale of the problem, the number of editors and sockpuppets failing to disclose their conflicts of interest, and the financial resources pouring in. I imagine this would give us a better idea of what next steps to take.
Cheers, Adam Wikimedia Scoring Platform Team [[mw:User:Adamw]]
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&a... [2] https://mediawiki.org/wiki/JADE [3] For example, https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/JADE:Diff/376901 [4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120170
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:00 PM Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing is slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in our projects.
In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of decrease of admins on enwp, and some likewise tendency on dewp. Is this a sign that the "good" powers are losing out to the "bad" ones?
I also seen a very passive response to two massPOV editing . One, on 35 versions, is related to Hans Asperger, to state he was a nazi doctor (false, even if he was somewhat passive in some cases). Here dewp reacted quickly and after a while enwp, so these articles are OK, but in most of the other 35 this false info lies unchanged. Also I react to the effort from GazProm promoting their propaganda article /Football for Friendship / in up to 80 version, and where almost noone has neutralized it.
Are we slowly losing the battle against the "evil" forces? And if so, is then our new strategy (being good in itself) and the plan to implement it all too naive? For example I like very much the ambition to help out on areas in the world where Wikipedia etc is not established, but would it be more correct to put effort in regaining control of the very many Wikipedia versions, that is definitely degenerating and we are loosing what has been done on these. (as a test look at "latest changes" on some of the versions with low editing, it is depressing to see that there often are more vandal editing, not being undone, then proper new material)
Would it be most appropriate if we all in a 2-3 years effort concentrated on getting (back) control on our material in our projects, before we start efforts in implementing the strategy we have agreed upon. Perhaps a number of paid admins, vandal/pov fighters, about as many as there are stewards today, would be necessary not to lose out.
Anders
//
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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org