[Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] the easy way or the less easy way

[SJ]

On 6/17/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that
> > it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not
> > demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to
> > do this?
> >
> > SJ
> >
>
> I must confess this conversation has, to me, been completely bizarre.
> Membership organizations (open your wallet and see which of them you belong
> to) involve a quid pro quo - you give something, you get something.  You
> give dues, you get to "belong" and call yourself a member.

Not necessarily dues.  Calling oneself a member is often a null quid
and provides nothing that is actually used by the member, save the
sense of belonging and support...

> Part of the worldwide appeal of Wikimedia projects is their egalitarianism
> and respect for the contributions of *everyone*.  There is no us and them -
> if you want to be a Wikimedian, you can be; you edit, you are.  It's simple,
> and only goes in one direction.  If you edit enough, you can vote for a
> person you want to see on the board.  Without money changing hands, you have
> the same representation you would under any other circumstances.

Money isn't the issue here.  There's nothing wrong with a membership
system that requires no dues.  "If you edit enough" -- that's what one
currently gives in exchange for the right to vote.


> Wikimedia you would see with stark membership requirements is a dark place
> indeed.  What happens to members who don't pay?  Are they prevented from
> editing?

I don't know where you are getting any of this...

> As to the suggestion above by SJ that "Real name" is a field to be filled
> in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that part of the
> lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be
> respected.

That was a quick cut and paste from previous discussions on meta;
there are subtle issues of pseudonymity to handle -- does it matter if
one Real Person has many different membership carsd?  How much does it
matter?  How well can we improve our tech infrastructure to provide
for filling out forms authenticated by project user-id?  And also
issues of privacy -- if some part of the Foundation knows something
about a user (IP, real name, phone number), how many others will come
to know the same thing?

We would all benefit from a more subtle discussion of these matters,
even aside from membership.

> like, and there is a lot of discussion about all this.  We may disagree on
> various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope everyone agrees the
> conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization.

Yes.  I'm very glad that you are participating in it.

SJ