On Feb 28, 2016 7:23 PM, "David Emrany" <david.emrany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Brion
When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you
proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ?
Never heard of it, so can't comment.
-- brion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia
Have we forgotten so soon the adverse media publicity about these
stealth PR campaigns
"Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it's no
longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It's just
another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of
camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could
promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products" [1]
"payment of money to Wikipedia editors represented "the greatest
threat the [Wikipedia] brand has seen to date" [2].
Lila had taken the first technical / automation /AI steps to identify
/ weed out the paid editing claques which rule the roost. That she was
eased out in this way shows that WMF is in terminal disrepair, and I
resent Flo's attempt to deflect this thread away from the numerous
paid editing controversies which have dogged the projects since the
very beginning and systematically driven away all competent potential
long-term contributors.
At the risk of being unpopular, I suggest the long-term health of our
projects require that its not about empowering our volunteers but
about regulating them.
David
[1]
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/20/roger_bamkin_gibraltor_s…
[2]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/20/wikimedia_uk_scandal/
On 2/29/16, Brion Vibber <bvibber(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Two distinct issues, I think:
>
> 1) about improving community representation in power structures, I
think we
> have to think more about what representation we
want and what structures
> would accomplish it. I have no answers but think we should consider
looking
> beyond WMF alone:
>
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082703.html
>
> 2) about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively: I'll have
> mostly tech-focused thoughts on that because that's where my expertise
is,
> so you need to hear from other people who
interact with a wider set of
> volunteers than patch contributors and the people who manage to figure
out
> our feedback systems. :) whether that should be
funded by / staffed
within
> WMF or our other movement orgs or both is an open
question.
>
> -- brion
> On Feb 28, 2016 11:51 AM, "David Cuenca Tudela" <dacuetu(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> Brion,
>> so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the
WMF
>> as
>> a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about
>> other
>> roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant
making.
>> So when you see that we are agreeing, do you
mean that there should be
>> more
>> power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater
>> focus in empowering volunteers?
>> How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the
direction
of
>> the movement? And how to offer volunteers the
opportunity to become
more
> dedicated
without paying them directly?
>
> Cheers
> Micru
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>