I disagree I think the fact the boss of wikimedia is very well paid and that he is benefiting at the end of day from free labor.
They could reward/pay the most important contributors and they don’t. Yes it’s voluntary but it’s also a comparatively very “” small “” group of people that write a big chunk of wikipedia.
I absolutely can’t stand that the boss of such utility service as wikipedia thinks first about his salary rather than rewarding their contributors.
Also you say this is not a problem but I’m sure the Union would have pointed out the same thing I just did.
That’s not the problem, 'tho. Wikipedia is volunteer-written and needs money to pay for the SW development and the servers.
Also you are missing an important point if you just say “hey they are volunteers, they choose to work for free”. It’s not like that because as I said it’s a few contributors that do the bast majority of article edits.
I’m wasting my time if you think that wikimedia has one problem and that’s it. Multiple problems that would need to be adressed by a Union.
There are multiple studies showing that paying volunteers can backfire in many ways. It could turn an hobby into a chore, attract the wrong kind of contributors, or sour those that do not have enough time to qualify for money. Plus, any metric you were to use to assign rewards would quickly be gamed by the wrong kind of people.
We can discuss about how much the administrators are paid and the many issues wikimedia has, but please, for the love of god, let’s not pay editors.
The egregious part of this is they have loads of money in their reserves, ask for donations every year in a misleading way like they’re on the brink of bankruptcy. And now they won’t even recognise their workers union.
This is exactly why I quit donating the past couple years. Bunch of clowns running that organization.
Yes. I wish they would just guarantee hosting of wiki projects for 30+ years… But no they always ask money for their other projects…
I heard the final goal is to amass enough money to live fully off the capital gains.
They’ll just move the goal posts again.
While the “volunteers” making it happen for real get nothing…
That’s not the problem, 'tho. Wikipedia is volunteer-written and needs money to pay for the SW development and the servers.
The issue is that they are not upfront about their strategy and that they are resisting unionization by the workers who develop the software.
A leading wikimedia software developer (@[email protected]) lost her job a while ago, most likely due to her involvement in the unionisation effort.
I disagree I think the fact the boss of wikimedia is very well paid and that he is benefiting at the end of day from free labor.
They could reward/pay the most important contributors and they don’t. Yes it’s voluntary but it’s also a comparatively very “” small “” group of people that write a big chunk of wikipedia.
I absolutely can’t stand that the boss of such utility service as wikipedia thinks first about his salary rather than rewarding their contributors.
Also you say this is not a problem but I’m sure the Union would have pointed out the same thing I just did.
Also you are missing an important point if you just say “hey they are volunteers, they choose to work for free”. It’s not like that because as I said it’s a few contributors that do the bast majority of article edits.
I’m wasting my time if you think that wikimedia has one problem and that’s it. Multiple problems that would need to be adressed by a Union.
There are multiple studies showing that paying volunteers can backfire in many ways. It could turn an hobby into a chore, attract the wrong kind of contributors, or sour those that do not have enough time to qualify for money. Plus, any metric you were to use to assign rewards would quickly be gamed by the wrong kind of people.
We can discuss about how much the administrators are paid and the many issues wikimedia has, but please, for the love of god, let’s not pay editors.