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

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Theo10011 <de10011 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > BTW that entire "rag tag group of amateurs doing something amazing",
> > doesn't hold very true indefinitely  We were doing something amazing when
> > we started, but we're really not amateurs anymore. The editing community
> is
> > still isolated from some of the recent spending and support but it has
> only
> > been increasing and increasing for the last decade. Look at the recent
> > budgets, look at the spending, the chapter spending, the programs, the
> > infrastructure- while its not as close to a typical top 10 nternet
> > property, it's not exactly a rag tag bunch of amateurs either.
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>


+1. A key issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_motivation

This is also an issue in the context of paid editing, which Dirk Franke
(Benutzer:Southpark) is currently looking at as part of his own (paid)
project on paid editing. Related discussions:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:WikiProjekt_Umgang_mit_bezahltem_Schreiben

While paid editing is a slightly different topic from a paid bureaucracy,
there are some elements in common. If gravy trains are allowed to develop,
this will cost the movement dearly in terms of genuine volunteers'
dedication (James being a prime example). It's profoundly demotivating. It
makes you feel alienated, like a dupe. (If we have to pay anyone from
donations, I would rather see micropayments made to editors and content
contributors.)

Minderbinder, one of the contributors to discussions around Dirk's project,
created a really great graphic to illustrate the motivation problem in the
context of paid editing, which I wanted to share here. In English looks
like this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vicious_circle_of_paid_editing.jpg

[image: File:Vicious circle of paid editing.jpg]

Personally I am pessimistic as to the chances the movement has of avoiding
the pitfalls of paid editing, paid consultancy, and paid bureaucracy. My
feeling is that people will increasingly seek to monetise their
involvement, or stop contributing.

Andreas