[Wikimedia-l] Strange, surprising, bold and unnecessary - reply to the WMF board statement

[Theo10011]

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> > The more people are paid, the more editors we lose (or the fewer we
> attract), in part because they wonder why they're writing for free for an
> organization that pays people to do other things.
>

I don' think anyone has been paid by WMF to edit......yet?

There might be a correlation in there somewhere, but it might also be a
small factor when you consider some of the research WMF repeatedly
generates. There is also the divide between reader and editors, things like
conversion ratio, plus the older community came up at a different time. I
think the argument these days is, WMF pays so editors don't have to do
those "other things"- either way, not my argument to make. This was just
about being a responsible parent organization and looking after those that
carry its name, rather than about individual editors.


>
> So I agree with Doc James that it would be great if the focus on payment
> could be reversed a little. Or else spread some money around the editing
> community in ways that won't cause COI problems.
>

Completely agreed. This just isn't the way, I'm always surprised how the
most active part of our community is completely insulated from the majority
of governance issues and most of the direct spending.

I think there was an idea to start micro-grants and support some tool
developments directly by community members (faster, smarter bots!), maybe
more grants and scholarships related to editing work rather than reflecting
a diverse or an international base, but I digress.


> But as things stand, we ought to assume that the growth of the paid
> bureaucracy and the shrinking of the volunteer editor community might be
> connected.
>

I hope not.

Just for the record, I have no idea what WCA is now in its current
incarnation. It is definitely too bureaucratic for me.

Regards
Theo