[Foundation-l] Rewarding volunteers

[Jens Ropers]

John Collison wrote this email:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-September/ 
000959.html

Erik Moeller replied with this email:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-September/ 
000962.html
(also see below)

Erik,

John was making some valid observations.

Some sysops and developers ARE getting more power, some Wikipedians DID  
repeatedly float the (IMHO inane) idea of blocking anon editing and  
there IS a trial for paying developers.

It's true that there are offsetting factors:
- Most if not all of the powers that sysops and developers are getting  
were previously held by Jimmy Wales et al. (who however--as far as I'm  
aware--exhibited considerable restraint in using them).
- The idea of blocking barring anons from editing was not accepted by  
the wider Wikipedia community and indeed never got very far.
- At this stage of our project, where there is a large user base and  
thus frequent demands to our developers, paying them might simply  
reflect the economics of demand and supply: Developers can't put in all  
that time the community cries out for without some remuneration.  
Thinking about paying developers could be seen as more on par to  
investing in hardware -- it's paying for a more or less essential  
component towards the continued success of the Wikipedia.

So there are pros and cons. The situation and recent developments can  
be interpreted differently. John voiced his concerns based on his  
reading of the situation and his POV. You may see an emphasis on other  
things and have a different POV.

However, for you to categorically state that "the trend is the exact  
opposite of what you claim it is" and then move on to irony and  
ridicule (if not sarcasm) -- I feel that that was not very kind to say  
the least. As John wrote, this was his first post to this mailing list.  
If this is how you welcome people and invite them to participate in our  
discussion -- well... I trust you're getting my drift.

I may want to add: I strongly seconded John's email -- I feel there IS  
a danger and temptation for us "two-legged pigs" to become like the  
human peasants and for some of us to become "more equal than others".  
(cf. Animal Farm) That that hasn't happened yet is a testament to those  
intrepid Wikipedians who defended our freedoms by eloquently and  
successfully making the case to the community that they should be  
preserved, even as other fruits looked tempting and were hanging low.  
But just because farsighted people voiced warnings in the past and  
successfully got the community to choose a better course (where some  
things even improved) doesn't mean that that was natural or inevitable.  
I also feel it would be unfair to construe John's email as belittling  
these past efforts (which maybe could be a reason for your  
indignation?) -- his words IMHO don't detract from the good things that  
have happened in the past but are a warning about our present course.  
Things can go wrong and we as are not infallible, even as a community.  
That's why we need words of warning like John's and he should be  
''commended'', not rebuked for saying them.

-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com