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(a)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

...that is not the basis for a healthy relationship for a Wikimedia volunteer

the will to cooperate in our mission should have precedence over the will to make a profit out of it

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 &lt;mail(a)anderswennersten.se&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

> 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.

> Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and > hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential > characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia?

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, James Salsman &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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, &lt;mail(a)anderswennersten.se&gt; wrote: volunteer-driven After and it reading _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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(a)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.

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 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. Can you please point to me where to find them? Has been tried before donating directly to volunteers with no strings attached? 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. 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(a)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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. 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(a)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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>