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

[Peter Southwood]

How about awards for good working software developments.
Peter
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466 at gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strange, surprising, bold and unnecessary - reply 
to the WMF board statement


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2639/5585 - Release Date: 02/06/13
>