Talk:WikiVolunteers User Group (proposed)

Feel free to say hello, ask questions, or propose a small project to help us get going (e.g creating a logo). If you support our objectives you are invited to sign up as a member and maybe even propose changes to the text on our main page. Participate, help out, volunteer, and enjoy! Smallbones (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Advocacy for volunteers

no need to archive this yet. Please "un-hat" if you'd like to continue the discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I signed up for this group imagining that it would be an advocate for Wikimedia community volunteers in the paid/volunteer divide. Already there are lots of advocates for paid editors but volunteers do not have any group speaking for them in the same organized way. When there are conversations advocating for paid editors, it would be nice if there was a group which convened conversations advocating for volunteers and which could provide an organized counterpoint to match the discourse which paid editing advocates present. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Agreed. It might be worth creating a page listing the pros and cons of paid editing. I include pros because it is important that this group should be seen to have the interests of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia as its primary concern. We should not exist merely to oppose something, but should be seen to be open to the possibility of paid editing having some benefit. If we're not seen like that, we will be dismissed as cranks. The cons would include the negative effects on volunteers. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC) I also see this as a group that will advocate for volunteers. It's also important to understand that volunteers exist as the main, but not the sole, part of the Wikimedia movement, e.g. the WMF (whose employees are reasonably well paid) is an indispensable part of the movement. We wouldn't have a place to write encyclopedia articles without them. And they would be nothing without us. @Bluerasberry: wrote a very interesting article in the Signpost back in 2015 which sheds some light on the complicate relation between volunteer work and the paid work of our allies. See Wikimania—can volunteers organize conferences? There are of course other allies that we need to consider. But I do feel that the opinions of volunteers sometimes get lost in the shuffle - thus the need for a group that will advocate for volunteers. I see @Johnuniq:'s comment somewhat differently. There are several types of paid editors who can be distinguished by real world characteristics. The main ones I'm concerned about are the commercial editing services. Just google "wikipedia writing service" to get a couple of dozen quick examples. These "pros" (paid editors) are "cons" (confidence men) IMHO. They try to convince people and companies that they can get free advertising on Wikipedia, when they can't. They try to convince our readers that they are reading neutral accurate information when the are not. And of course they violate our terms of use by never declaring their paid edits. They are also almost always sockpuppets. There's nothing on the positive side of the ledger for them. I would concentrate our efforts on trying to get rid of these folks. A second group, those editing and doing PR work for their main employer, can be almost as bad. Most, though, simply have never heard of our rules. So we need to make an effort to inform them. There are other groups, e.g. WMF employees, paid Wikipedians-in-Residence, employees of universities and cultural institutions (when not writing about themselves or their institutions) who could be called paid editors. The ToU separates them out from the other paid editors however, and doesn't require very strict disclosure. These folks have a lot to offer - they are our allies. There might be even another type of paid editor, but this is likely to be purely theoretical. Any workplace could derive some benefit by having their employees write unbiased articles about subjects unrelated to their business, e.g. a biologist at a large food company could write articles on bacteria that do not affect the company. The benefit to the food company would be somewhat indirect - but say that their employees would be able to have the time to keep up with their field which would benefit them down the road in unexpected ways. This doesn't happen as far as I can tell, or maybe nobody just ever notices it. We should encourage it, but keep an eye on it too, if it ever happens. So there are pros and cons, but they don't usually overlap in the same editor. Smallbones (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC) I don't think we are disagreeing, but on a tactical level, if this group cannot be seen to be willing to embrace the possibility of paid editing having some benefits, the project is a waste of time because its members will be dismissed as ax-grinders. I'm not hair-splitting about how GLAM people and similar are terrific, I mean this group has to embrace the possibility that a blatantly NOTHERE PR company hiring tendentious SPAs might have some benefits. On the principle that a stopped clock is correct twice a day, such paid editing might, for example, show that a certain notable topic should have an article created. Further, even NOTHERE warriors can correct errors, particularly given the subject is paying them. I have written long screeds about how paid editing can be caustic to the community and how it can drive away high-quality volunteers, so I don't need convincing. I'm not saying that bad paid editors have done helpful things, but we must acknowledge that they might in order for our views to have credibility in the general community which abounds in pollyanna idealists who think the more muck added the better—someone else will eventually clean it up. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC) My concerns are somewhat different. Basically I have two: first is that this group become dominated or rendered ineffective or even harmful by paid-editing apologists. The second, which I have addressed at various times, is that paid editing is really a Foundation issue and is not something volunteers should sweat about excessively. The reason is that paid editing creates reputational issues for the Foundation, not for individual volunteers. Still, I think this effort is worth attempting. Coretheapple (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC) I've gotten more than a dozen emails about this user group and I'm impressed how much people come at the paid editing problem from different angles. I haven't had time this weekend to answer all the emails, and I'd prefer to continue the discussions on this page so that we can come to a working solution on what the problem is and how best to address it. But I do want it to be the case that everybody who believes that Wikipedia should be based on volunteerism rather than paid editing should be welcomed here. I can guarantee everybody that @Coretheapple: and @Johnuniq: are not paid editing apologists. How to get even the 3 of us working together is a difficult problem. I'll suggest that we should recognize that there are paid editors who are beyond the pale. If they won't accept the ToU and declare that they are paid, then they won't accept any of our rules, they just want to write whatever they want and not let others edit it, which is simply not compatible with the Wiki way of doing things. If there are polyannas who say we have let anybody edit even if they won't follow our rules, I say let's show them examples like en:Banc De Binary or en:FXCM where the damage to our readers and to the encyclopedia should be obvious to everybody. we take some responsibility for trying to stop the paid abuse of Wikipedia. Sure the WMF could do a lot more, and we can try to convince them to do a lot more. But we should understand that they have some technical and legal difficulties in stopping these editors. If we really want to stop the abuse, much of it is up to us. we do need to do positive things here as well as "just saying no" to paid editors who in effect are claiming the right to violate all of our rules. There are too many places on Wikipedia where editors just say "you can't do this. You can't do that. Don't even consider doing xxx." I don't want to be part of a group that only does that type of thing. We do need to reach out to other volunteers and help them. We should spend some time on how we can best do that. Smallbones (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC) I think one area in which this group could be useful would be in terms of interacting with the Foundation, to advocate for greater steps to fight paid editing. After all, it is basically their problem and if they won't fight it, by toughening the rules and not being so half-hearted and mealy-mouthed, then I don't see why volunteers should get into a sweat about it. And then there are issues outside of paid editing, such as extending legal protections to volunteers who are ensnared in legal issues due to their editing, and perhaps even go a little father afield into improving database access. The Foundation seems to lavish money on all kinds of things, including salaries and other questionable uses (or so I read), and sometimes seems to take its eye off the ball. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "I don't see why volunteers should get into a sweat about it" I would expect caring about the quality and reliability of the encyclopedia to rank high among the reasons. No disagreement with your view of the WMF. Rentier (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Sure, that's why we do stuff like fight vandalism. But paid editing is a special situation, in that it involves the reputation of the Project as a whole and the people who run it. Their personal reputations are on the line, not mine. Yet when the subject of paid editing come up their spines turn to jelly. You know the old expression "Why be more Catholic than the Pope?" (or in this case, the Founder) Coretheapple (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Mailing list

Please "un-hat" if you'd like to continue the discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An email newsletter or mailing list may be desirable. However, I would feel uncomfortable exposing my email address except on a case-by-case basis. I accept that there may be newly registered accounts who wish to particpate, but frankly I would wonder about someone with a short history or low edit count who found this group and wanted to join. Only a very small proportion of contributors are nuts, but it only takes one of them with a sleeper account to mean that an email address would have to be abandoned. Johnuniq (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC) I agree. Coretheapple (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC) A mailing list could be very useful, but I understand your point. Some people create a special email just for mailing lists. We might have a mailing list just for those who don't mind exposing their emails. We could do the newsletter on a subpage and just send around links to user talk pages. Or we could just have everything on this page (or subpages). The last 2 are closest to my preference but I wouldn't stand in the way of folks who want an email list and might even join it. As far as sleeper accounts and new editors we do have the membership requirement "Editors with newly registered accounts are welcome to join in our discussions, but should wait until they have been registered for at least 6 weeks and made 50 edits before joining the user group as a full member." I was thinking I was paranoid when I wrote this, but everybody who deals with commercial paid editors has had to deal with something like this. Smallbones (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC) I recommend https://protonmail.com/ for privacy-minded people. The mailbox is easy to set up, anonymous, convenient to use. Personally, I almost always use my main mailbox using my real name. If someone wants to "harass" me online or offline, they are welcome to give it a go. Rentier (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer support

I am just copying over a few ideas expressed by Smallbones on how the proposed group can support volunteers. To quote him, we need to "limit what we try to do to things that are within our resources". Please expand this list or go into more detail.

• Offer advice to volunteers on all WMF projects on how to work with non-volunteer editors and how to best enforce the Terms of Use on their home projects
• Offer advice on how to best work with the WMF, chapters, and other affiliates and, with the consensus of the User Group, help represent the editor's concerns to the WMF or affiliate in a constructive manner.
• Organize a listing of current volunteer opportunities available to editors.
• Recognize exceptional volunteer editors, especially in the smaller projects.
• Advise on organizing volunteer projects in various language editions.
• Advise on funding applications to further volunteer projects.

GastelEtzwane (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Moved text to main page - activities
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From emailed comments and the above, I'll try to patch it all together. Then I'll put it in the main page and we can continue discussing. *I would very much prefer the discussions to be on the talk page however.* Smallbones (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Sharing news, advice, and resources via talk page discussions. We encourage all Wikimedians to start discussions at Talk:WikiVolunteers User Group (proposed) if they would like to: Help organize and promote volunteer-centered activities, programs, and events Communicate the results and lessons learned from volunteer activities on one Wikimedia project to other projects Help organize volunteer activities going on simultaneously in various language editions. Recognizing excellence in volunteer contributions especially in smaller projects which lack such organized recognition Advise on funding applications to further volunteer projects. Organize a listing of current volunteer opportunities available to editors. Advise volunteers on how to best work with the WMF, chapters, and other affiliates. a monthly email newsletter or mailing list otherwise communicating within and across Wikimedia projects and with external media about the importance of volunteers to Wikimedia and the need to oppose the encroachments of paid editing. When asked by a member and with the consensus of the User Group, help represent an editor's concerns to the WMF or affiliate in a constructive manner help represent volunteer views in discussions and planning when individual volunteers don't have the time to follow the often lengthy discussions note that we cannot represent all Wikimedia volunteers in these efforts, only those who join this user group, and even then only when there is a clear consensus for doing so. Note also that we are not a complaint board to be used against the WMF or our other allies. Discussions about difficulties with our allies must be civil, and recognize that volunteers need the WMF and our allies, and that they need us as volunteers. Help stop the abuses by paid editors on any Wikimedia project Gather data on the problems caused by paid editing Discuss how to best alleviate these problems Advise volunteers on all WMF projects on how to work with non-volunteer editors Advise volunteers how to best enforce the Terms of Use and their home project's policies Note that this advice and discussion is not meant to replace or take over the functions of projects such as en:Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard Smallbones (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed logo

Thanks to @Bri and Happybluemo: for proposing and making the proposed logo. I like it in that it is quite striking and will distinguish us from other user groups very well. I interpret it as something like a student or volunteer raising their hand to say "yes, I'm in." I do wonder if this interpretation is world-wide. Also I'd suggest CamelCase for the text in the logo.

In any case, a logo is a significant symbol for the group, so this should be discussed and if there are any other proposals for logos we should consider those as well. Until then, the "official logo" of the group is the pd Community logo, as stated in our application. Smallbones (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

M:WikiConvention francophone/2017/Programme/Don Quichotte ou David contre Goliath ? Comment lutter contre les contributions rémunérées

will be presented by @GastelEtzwane: at the October 19 Francophone WikiConvention. I'd love to see his ideas after the presentation. But perhaps we can encourage him and put down a few ideas of our own on how to level the playing field between companies and individuals who are willing to spend $1,000s to put in a "WikiAd" and volunteers who can only offer their time.

My 5 main ideas on this topic are:

1. Let people know what our rules are - if we do this the vast majority of people and companies will try, in good faith, to follow them. But if we don't communicate our rules, people will just start assuming "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia where anybody can put in an advert."
2. Always remember that the large majority of users and readers do not want hidden adverts in our encyclopedias. They may not be active in trying to stop paid editing, but when the topic comes up, they will be there.
3. We need to show strength and solidarity. Confrontation will always have some negative unintended consequences; but a large group of volunteers standing together will often be enough to dissuade paid editors.
4. Some rules need to be adjusted or clarified from time to time, but unless we remember point 3 above, just changing the rules may not help.
5. There are mechanisms that help enforce current rules, e.g. Articles for Deletion on enWiki. These need to be attended to. It's a lot of work, but there is no way around doing the work. Smallbones (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Smallbones :-)

I welcome any suggestions and I hope that we will be able to get a film on the conference, we have to keep on talking about this issue. Your point 3. Strength and Solidarity, is the key to our success. GastelEtzwane (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Traduction française des propositions de Smallbones :

1. Informer les gens de nos règles - si nous le faisons, la grande majorité des personnes et des entreprises vont essayer, de bonne foi, de les suivre. Mais si nous ne communiquons pas nos règles, les gens vont commencer à se dire que "Wikipédia est une encyclopédie où tout le monde peut mettre une pub".
2. Toujours garder à l'esprit que la grande majorité des utilisateurs et des lecteurs ne veulent pas de publicités cachées dans nos encyclopédies. Ils ne sont peut être pas activement opposés aux contributions rémunérées, mais si le sujet vient au devant de la scène, ils seront là.
3. Nous devons montrer notre force et faire preuve de solidarité. La confrontation aura toujours quelques conséquences négatives inattendues ; mais un grand groupe de bénévoles solidaires entre eux est souvent suffisant pour dissuader les contributeurs rémunérées.
4. Quelques règles devront être adaptées ou clarifiées de temps en temps, mais à moins de garder le point 3 à l'esprit, un simple changement des règles ne va pas aider.
5. Des mécanismes existent pour aider à faire respecter les règles actuelles, par exemple les Pages à Supprimer (WP:PàS) sur frWiki. Cela doit être fait. C'est beaucoup de travail, mais il n'y a pas d'alternative.

GastelEtzwane (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)