New financing model for editations

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New financing...

[hackathon] Wikimedia Hackathon...

James Salsman

18 Mar 2015 18 Mar '15

5:52 p.m.

I really like editathons because of the ease with which they can be designed to address systemic bias, but I'm not sure having them supported by the Foundation is optimal from the perspective of time and money both. Therefore, I propose that someone try some editathons where half the tickets are auctioned, the other half are raffled, and the Foundation pays to support them if and only if the auction fails to pay all of the expenses in advance, and then only the difference. This will allow them to become more exclusive, but not completely exclusive, and it will incentivize the organizing wikipedians by allowing them to pay themselves some contingent portion of the proceeds to be negotiated with the Foundation, and which could, for example, include an open-ended proportion of auction proceeds. Please share your thoughts on this proposal. I am also making diagrams for nine of the twelve steps listed on http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review and its talk page, where I will soon be proposing a different alternate funding model to avoid relying on Google Summer of Code. I would also be most interested in comments on that. Thank you!

Show replies by date

Pete Forsyth

18 Mar 18 Mar

6:03 p.m.

On Mar 18, 2015 8:53 PM, "James Salsman" <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I really like editathons ..., but I'm not sure having them supported by the Foundation is optimal ... Therefore, I propose ...

James, I'm confused by your presentation here. Numerous organizations (and in many cases, no organization) support editathons, with a pretty wide variety of finding models. The WMF is one of many. Is there actually a problem that needs addressing here? If so, could you spell it out in more detail? Pete User:Peteforsyth

Richard Symonds

6:07 p.m.

I worry that running an auction and a raffle for each - or even some - editathons would be a lot of work, even if you just focus on the admin work (I'm not sure what the laws around fundraising auctions and lotteries are but that could be costly too). The FDC and the community in general are very much against increasing 'back office costs' and this would increase them by quite a bit for each editathon. The incentivising volunteers with money issue would also be very very difficult, even if the community was ok with it. You'd be paying volunteers, which in this country would make them staff, which means they'd need a minimum wage, taxes, and even a pension. Do we need to incentivise volunteers with cash at all? I'm not sure we do... there's no shortage of volunteers to run editathons in the UK at least! On 19 Mar 2015 00:54, "James Salsman" <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Oliver Keyes

19 Mar 19 Mar

4:40 a.m.

A +1 to both Richard and Pete; Making editathons harder to put on is NOT a valuable use of anyone's time. On Wednesday, 18 March 2015, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

...

pays

to support them if and only if the auction fails to pay all of the

expenses

in advance, and then only the difference. This will allow them to become more exclusive, but not completely exclusive, and it will incentivize the organizing wikipedians by allowing them to pay themselves some contingent portion of the proceeds to be negotiated with the Foundation, and which could, for example, include an open-ended proportion of auction proceeds. Please share your thoughts on this proposal. I am also making diagrams

for

nine of the twelve steps listed on http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review and its talk page, where I will soon be proposing a different alternate funding model to avoid relying on Google Summer of Code. I would also be most interested in comments on that. Thank you! _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>

?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> ?subject=unsubscribe>

-- Sent from my mobile computing device of Lovecraftian complexity and horror.

Andrew Gray

4:57 a.m.

On 19 March 2015 at 00:52, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Therefore, I propose that someone try some editathons where half the tickets are auctioned, the other half are raffled, and the Foundation pays to support them if and only if the auction fails to pay all of the expenses in advance, and then only the difference. This will allow them to become more exclusive, but not completely exclusive, (...)

I'm a bit lost here. At the moment, editathons are (almost?) always free to attend, though some are tacked onto a paying event (eg a conference); when "ticketed", this is usually to control numbers when space is limited. This model works pretty well and makes them popular events; indeed, they're one of our most visible public activities. I don't see where the benefit would come from selling - or raffling, auctioning, etc- tickets. It would invariably deter attendees and reduce uptake; why would making them more exclusive be a *good* thing? We want as many people as possible to attend, and most do not run at absolute capacity. This looks like a problem rather than a solution, even assuming we need a solution at all. Yes, it would be nice if they were cost-neutral - but the cost of running editathons is, in my experience, not high. There are probably easier savings to be made by WMF. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Jane Darnell

5:08 a.m.

I totally agree. It would be good though to have some WMF sponsored swag on hand for minor prizes that the chapters could give out for unusual contributions that pop up at local edit-a-thons though. I am not sure you would need to track it heavily on the financial side - I was thinking along the lines of some "real life barnstars" that could be sent from the head office, decorated with various jargon-like "Wikipedia haiku"s that might appeal to the hard-core Wikipedian. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:

...

On 19 March 2015 at 00:52, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Therefore, I propose that someone try some editathons where half the tickets are auctioned, the other half are raffled, and the Foundation

pays

to support them if and only if the auction fails to pay all of the

expenses

in advance, and then only the difference. This will allow them to become more exclusive, but not completely exclusive, (...)

Fæ

5:19 a.m.

This thread puzzles me. When I was the Chair of a certain chapter, I recall a strategy meeting where I was the only participant who did not put "fund raising" as a 9/10 priority, I set it as merely 5/10. I guess it is in this area of money and "branding" that world-views are conflicting. When we first coined the word "editathon" the working model was that they were open events run at *zero cost* (we had no staff and insignificant funds). Later we started providing a free buffet, paying expenses for "trained helpers" and some others, and a couple years after that it started to become impossible to organize an editathon without first having an employee agreeing it, being required to use official feedback forms and committing to making event reports to help with future funding. Basic facts: * Unpaid volunteer editathon participants do not need travel costs, they should be local people who can get on a local bus, and do not need to travel hundreds of miles. * Editathons work well when attendees can buy their own food from a local cafe or expect a social event afterwards where they pay their own costs. Frequently the hosting institution provides drinks and sandwiches for free. * Editathons work perfectly well without incurring employee costs (this is why editathons work in countries where there are no Wikimedia employees). Volunteers who know enough about Wikimedia projects to get a geonotice approved and discuss the event in advance on relevant wikiproject noticeboards or email lists do not need, nor even ask for, funds. * The world is stuffed with free venues and institutions looking to support open knowledge. I had several organizations spontaneously offer me top class venues in the UK, so long as I could get a handful of keen editors to commit to coming. We are not even close to running out of goodwill of this type. Fae

Richard Symonds

6:07 a.m.

As Fae says, it's relatively easy to run low- or zero-cost editathons, and we're not running out of volunteers who are happy to do it. We might need to have a discussion, though, about how we're actually gathering data from the editathons that happen independently of the WMF or any thorgs. Do we gather that data? I assume it would be useful to gather! Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 19 March 2015 at 12:19, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Oliver Keyes

7:33 a.m.

On the low or zero-cost element, the one bit I'd question is 'editathons work well when attendees can buy their own food or attend a social where they pay their own costs'. This is certainly convenient for the chapter/volunteers/delete as applicable, but I don't think we should have it as an expectation. The thing that the last couple of years has made very clear is that Wikipedia's outreach to marginalised or disenfranchised people needs work and is of vital importance. If we have an expectation that those who attend will pay their own way, then only those who can afford to do so will be able to attend. This is not to say that James's proposal is a good one (it's not. It seems, frankly, entirely arbitrary, completely out of left field and not solving a problem that we've actually seen happen. Honestly the portrayal of editathons it contains makes me question how many the author has attended). But we need to be cognizant of who we're excluding with these sorts of expectations. So, yes, editathons work well when attendees pay their own way - but they work /best/ when they don't. On Thursday, 19 March 2015, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

-- Sent from my mobile computing device of Lovecraftian complexity and horror.

Fæ

7:44 a.m.

On 19 March 2015 at 14:33, Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com> wrote: ...

...

expectations. So, yes, editathons work well when attendees pay their own way - but they work /best/ when they don't.

Oliver Keyes

7:55 a.m.

We have a vested interest, as a community, in having as diverse a group of people behind our content as possible, because we have a diverse group of readers. "People who can't afford a lunch out whenever they want" is a demographic: a big one, depending on the country in question. Coming up with statements that editathons go great when the editor or newcomer in question covers all their personal costs ignores the massive number of people who cannot afford to do that and so will not attend. If your reaction to that is discussions about studies or politically contentious plane tickets then you've, at best, completely missed the point I was trying to make. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 19 March 2015 at 14:33, Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com> wrote: ...

expectations. So, yes, editathons work well when attendees pay their own way - but they work /best/ when they don't.

I believe there is no verifiable evidence that editathons work best when attendees have all their costs paid. If there is, could someone provide a link please? There have been occasions where the way some attendees received payments to attend, including flying in from other countries, has been both politically contentious and anecdotally resulted in attendees without funding being put off using their volunteer time to support editathons run on the same basis. By "anecdotally" I include both this being said to me and there being emails on various lists relating this viewpoint. Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Pharos

8 a.m.

I can attest that there are indeed many cases where $50 or $75 in bus or gas money can make a big difference for volunteers, even in the United States. There is long way between intercontinental plane tickets and offering no financial assistance at all. Thanks, Pharos On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 19 March 2015 at 14:33, Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com> wrote: ...

expectations. So, yes, editathons work well when attendees pay their own way - but they work /best/ when they don't.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Fæ

8:02 a.m.

On 19 March 2015 at 14:55, Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

As the point you have made here is now factually different to:

...

>... editathons work well when attendees pay their own > way - but they work /best/ when they don't.

Oliver Keyes

8:12 a.m.

My apologies; I should've said "have to pay their own way under any and all circumstances", and further remembered that it's unreasonable to expect people to attempt to put the final sentence of your comment into the context of your entire comment before replying to it. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 19 March 2015 at 14:55, Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com> wrote:

As the point you have made here is now factually different to:

>... editathons work well when attendees pay their own > way - but they work /best/ when they don't.

then yes, it is hard to guess which point you want to make. Funding cases of people who cannot pay for a sandwich (or bring their own) or would like to have a bus ticket covered, is entirely different from stating that editathons work best all attendees are offered funding. I was asking what evidence there was to support the first claim. I conclude there is none and it is likely that nobody believes this is true. Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Fæ

8:14 a.m.

No problem. Fae On 19 Mar 2015 15:12, "Oliver Keyes" <ironholds(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 19 March 2015 at 14:55, Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com> wrote:

As the point you have made here is now factually different to:

>... editathons work well when attendees pay their own > way - but they work /best/ when they don't.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Marc A. Pelletier

7:46 a.m.

On 15-03-19 08:19 AM, Fæ wrote:

...

after that it started to become impossible to organize an editathon without first having an employee agreeing it

That seems... wrong. For one, that experience may be WMUK's but it's certainly far from universal. WMCA organizes monthly editathons in Montréal, at the very least, at zero cost. (They are organized/moderated by volunteers and the venue is provided at no cost by the Bibilothèque et Archive Nationale du Québec). I've never attended, but I'm told that they are fairly popular and well-liked. If WMUK /chose/ do have a more structured (and more expensive) framework to organize similar events themselves, it in no way prevents volunteers or other organisms to do so without a penny of Foundation (or chapter) funding. I have no idea what this thread is trying to achieve. A "new financing model" for editathons makes no sense givent that there isn't /a/ financing model to replace. There are as many financing schemes and organizational scopes as there are editathons. -- Marc

Andrew Lih

6:39 a.m.

Rather than making edit-a-thons more restrictive, our project in DC is doing the opposite - having a Wikipedia on-ramp available five days a week, in one of the most high profile places in the US, at the National Archives (NARA). Wikipedia Space is a project launching by July 2015 at the NARA Innovation Hub where any GLAM professional or member of the general public can learn about Wikipedia and free culture in a standing facility and immediately contribute content. Details here: http://www.knightfoundation.org/grants/201450237/ Feel free to contact me for anyone interested in pitching in. -Andrew On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

3323

days inactive

3323

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

16 comments

10 participants

tags (0)

participants (10)

Andrew Gray
Andrew Lih
Fæ
James Salsman
Jane Darnell
Marc A. Pelletier
Oliver Keyes
Pete Forsyth
Pharos
Richard Symonds