Mailing List Archive

On 1 March 2011 19:35, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> I'm curious how http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller
> fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan.


It's pretty much directly answered right there on the linked page, for
anyone else who's wondering.

What bit of the page wasn't clear?


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> Hi.
>
> I'm curious how
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller
> fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan.
>
> MZMcBride

It's an effective marketing technique. Something to watch on YouTube that
doesn't trash us.

Fred



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 3/1/2011 11:44 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 1 March 2011 19:35, MZMcBride<z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>> I'm curious how http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller
>> fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan.
> It's pretty much directly answered right there on the linked page, for
> anyone else who's wondering.
>
> What bit of the page wasn't clear?
Well, some people might selectively read that page and only see the
parts about working on the fundraiser (spending money to raise more
money), while missing the parts about creative work that conveys who we
are to the world (creating educational materials), or telling stories
that "convince readers to become editors and donors" (either one, or
both, I would add). It mostly depends on what kind of bias you read the
page with.

I think all the misapprehensions and misunderstandings out there about
the Wikimedia projects (even Wikipedia as the best known example) make a
pretty compelling case that work along these lines is still needed. If
people actually understood how collaboration on a wiki works, it would
be much easier for them to accept the projects for what they are, rather
than creating drama about things they aren't. Then we could focus more
on dealing with the drama on the projects themselves.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:44 AM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1 March 2011 19:35, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm curious how
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller
> > fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan.
>
>
> It's pretty much directly answered right there on the linked page, for
> anyone else who's wondering.
>
> What bit of the page wasn't clear?
>

Thanks David - I tried to make it as clear as possible.

But there is one important purpose of that job that may be a bit hidden in
between the lines: For this position, I'm looking for someone who can help
free us from dependence on "The Jimmy Letter" in fundraising.

No one -- least of all Jimmy -- thinks it's acceptable that our fundraising
model relies entirely on a letter from the founder. In the 2010 fundraiser,
we found that banners from editors (and Sue) got similar, sometimes slightly
better, click rates as the Jimmy banners.

But the best 15 or 20 major versions Jimmy's letters all performed massively
better than the best-performing editor letters. (BTW: Megan and Ryan
Faulkner are working on a big post-fundraiser report on our testing which
will be released here as soon as it's done.)

Therefore, there's a large chunk of creative work to be done in discovering
letters that can work from editors -- and not only editors, but also
readers, donors, and other figures, such as maybe the Nobel Laureate
Physicist who writes us fan mail.

There's no question that the winning letters have to be written by the
people themselves -- not only for reasons of integrity, but also because
fake letters don't actually work. But letters don't work as fundraisers
simply because they come from the heart. They need to tell a gripping story
(in two paragraphs!), ask for money effectively, and answer several
questions that potential donors have on their minds.

That's a tall order. And that's why I want to hire someone to go spend a ton
of one-on-one time with a whole lot of Wikimedians while working on these
letters.

That is not all this person will do. They will also capture images and
hopefully some video.

And not just for the fundraiser. For the purposes of the fundraiser, we need
this person to amass a mountain of creative material that we can remix, in
collaboration with the original voices behind the material, and test during
the fundraiser.

But shouldn't we use that mountain of material for other purposes too? Yes.
And so this person -- if we are lucky enough to find someone to fill this
role -- will also work closely with Jay & Moka in Communications to use this
material for general purposes too. (Please send recommendations if you know
anyone who can fill this role!)

Max, I hope that helps. If it doesn't, just let me know and I'll provide
more info.

Zack



>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

In a message dated 3/1/2011 12:08:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia@frontier.com writes:


> If
> people actually understood how collaboration on a wiki works, it would
> be much easier for them to accept the projects for what they are, rather
> than creating drama about things they aren't. Then we could focus more
> on dealing with the drama on the projects themselves.
>

I think you miss the ball.
It's not about understanding on a cerebral level. We all have collaborated
IRL on various things. Very few of us, previously, have collaborated in a
massively multi-player video game. Most of the time you fight each other,
or the orcs, you don't collaborate on building a house or something.

It's a new experience for most persons, and I don't think you can get the
full flavor with charts and graphs. You're going to need to document and
recount some of the drama itself, without downplaying what actually occurred
and why.

Some personality types are not suited for MMORG collaboration, and we
shouldn't make it seem like all are.

W
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Gerard wrote:
> On 1 March 2011 19:35, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm curious how http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller
>> fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan.
>
> It's pretty much directly answered right there on the linked page, for
> anyone else who's wondering.
>
> What bit of the page wasn't clear?

The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's
mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a
Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a very finite amount
of resources for staff hires; I just don't see how this passes any type of
reasonable cost/benefit analysis.

If it's the outside world's perception of Wikimedia that is the underlying
concern, I think hiring someone whose job description includes "make
something incredibly beautiful every month" might be more detrimental to
Wikimedia's image and mission than anything else. There are a lot of people
who would be (more) willing to donate to Wikimedia if they didn't feel their
donations would be spent like this, in my view.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 1 March 2011 20:22, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's
> mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a
> Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a very finite amount
> of resources for staff hires; I just don't see how this passes any type of
> reasonable cost/benefit analysis.
> If it's the outside world's perception of Wikimedia that is the underlying
> concern, I think hiring someone whose job description includes "make
> something incredibly beautiful every month" might be more detrimental to
> Wikimedia's image and mission than anything else. There are a lot of people
> who would be (more) willing to donate to Wikimedia if they didn't feel their
> donations would be spent like this, in my view.


You appear to be generalising from your personal preferences to the
world here. This is a common fallacy and a really bad idea in general.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Gerard wrote:
> On 1 March 2011 20:22, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>
>> The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's
>> mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a
>> Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a very finite amount
>> of resources for staff hires; I just don't see how this passes any type of
>> reasonable cost/benefit analysis.
>>
>> If it's the outside world's perception of Wikimedia that is the underlying
>> concern, I think hiring someone whose job description includes "make
>> something incredibly beautiful every month" might be more detrimental to
>> Wikimedia's image and mission than anything else. There are a lot of people
>> who would be (more) willing to donate to Wikimedia if they didn't feel their
>> donations would be spent like this, in my view.
>
> You appear to be generalising from your personal preferences to the
> world here. This is a common fallacy and a really bad idea in general.

It's not really about my personal preferences (I originally asked how this
job opening fits within Wikimedia's strategic plan or mission). You've
chosen to side-step the actual questions being asked here (twice now). Based
on my past discussions with you, I generally take this to mean that you
agree with the premise, but don't want to say so aloud. (Your brand of
Wikimedia criticism is much more diplomatic than my own, to be sure.) If I'm
wrong and you really do believe that this job opening is a good idea,
perhaps you can explain why you think that. :-)

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 2:22 PM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's
> mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a
> Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a very finite amount
> of resources for staff hires; I just don't see how this passes any type of
> reasonable cost/benefit analysis.
>
> If it's the outside world's perception of Wikimedia that is the underlying
> concern, I think hiring someone whose job description includes "make
> something incredibly beautiful every month" might be more detrimental to
> Wikimedia's image and mission than anything else. There are a lot of people
> who would be (more) willing to donate to Wikimedia if they didn't feel their
> donations would be spent like this, in my view.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Don't you see it? It's a position needed to ensure and improve the
cash flow. Which in turn is needed to support a continuosly increasing
spendings and an increasingly large staff.

This position is key for the strategic sustaining of the wikimedia
movement (and don't you dare to speak bad of that).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 1 March 2011 20:44, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> It's not really about my personal preferences (I originally asked how this
> job opening fits within Wikimedia's strategic plan or mission). You've
> chosen to side-step the actual questions being asked here (twice now). Based
> on my past discussions with you, I generally take this to mean that you
> agree with the premise, but don't want to say so aloud. (Your brand of
> Wikimedia criticism is much more diplomatic than my own, to be sure.) If I'm
> wrong and you really do believe that this job opening is a good idea,
> perhaps you can explain why you think that. :-)


Erm ... because it's fairly obviously for the purpose of getting more
funding and getting more content contributors.

I'm still completely failing to see what you don't get about this.


-d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Le 01/03/2011 17:26, David Gerard a écrit :
> On 1 March 2011 20:22, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>
>> The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's
>> mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a
>> Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a very finite amount
>> of resources for staff hires; I just don't see how this passes any type of
>> reasonable cost/benefit analysis.
>> If it's the outside world's perception of Wikimedia that is the underlying
>> concern, I think hiring someone whose job description includes "make
>> something incredibly beautiful every month" might be more detrimental to
>> Wikimedia's image and mission than anything else. There are a lot of people
>> who would be (more) willing to donate to Wikimedia if they didn't feel their
>> donations would be spent like this, in my view.
>
>
> You appear to be generalising from your personal preferences to the
> world here. This is a common fallacy and a really bad idea in general.

No, I subscribe to this point of view and all my circle of relations
feel the same about donating to non-profit organizations who show too
much interest into receiving money. I'm not insinuating any accusation
but stating a fact about a category of minds.

David, your sentence wasn't very clear. You're "doubting"[1] that the
ethical-driven concerns expressed by MZMcBride can be generalized. Are
you saying that this point of view is so minoritary, maybe even unique,
that it should be disconsidered?

Let's pretend you're right for a second.

If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of the
reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat. Nobody likes being
exploited, in particular volunteers. This is a common mistake of
volunteers management. (aka "butchering the golden egg producing
chicken"). This hypothesis would be worth checking. A survey could be
drawn about why the very active wikipedians left since 2001.

[1]: in fact you even say it would be a fallacy.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Zack Exley, 01/03/2011 21:08:
> And not just for the fundraiser. For the purposes of the fundraiser, we need
> this person to amass a mountain of creative material that we can remix, in
> collaboration with the original voices behind the material, and test during
> the fundraiser.

Is this person going to work on the contributors' stories (which, in
brief, replaced donation comments)? How to actually use them was a big
question during the fundraising. (Bards are usually expected to know
previous works. :-) )

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Zack Exley wrote:
> But there is one important purpose of that job that may be a bit hidden in
> between the lines: For this position, I'm looking for someone who can help
> free us from dependence on "The Jimmy Letter" in fundraising.

I think part of my confusion (maybe the biggest chunk of it) comes from
terminology and naming. I guess you're not really trying to hire a
"storyteller," you're trying to hire a "public relations (fundraising)"
person. One title is obviously a bit more poetic, but also a lot more
confusing, I think.

The other aspect to this that's confusing to me is the underlying purpose of
the "Community Department." Best as I can tell, it's largely focused on
fundraising. Is there a description of the current "Community Department"
that clarifies what it does (other than fundraising)? I'm not saying that
Wikimedia shouldn't have a team devoted to fundraising, but I don't really
understand why it's named the way it is. Is there something wrong with it
being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only one
confused about this.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote:
> If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of the
> reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat.
Based on the one survey of former contributors that has been conducted
(see
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results),
this doesn't figure highly enough to demonstrate the kind of significant
minority you suggest. Rather, the concerns of those surveyed are
overwhelmingly about how rulebound, overly complex, and unfriendly their
work in the community seemed to be. Perhaps somebody would care to go
back through the full survey responses and see if they can identify
comments that fit the "I was being exploited" line you're pushing here.
I would prefer to hope that as the foundation's community department
works to develop the fundraising and messaging, it will also create and
improve upon initiatives that lead to a better community environment, as
that seems to be the dominant problem.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> Is there something wrong with it
> being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only
> one
> confused about this.
>
> MZMcBride

There is plenty wrong with messing with us. This is hardly the first
time. I doubt advancing the project is on your agenda.

Fred


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 1 March 2011 20:44, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> It's not really about my personal preferences (I originally asked how this
> job opening fits within Wikimedia's strategic plan or mission). You've
> chosen to side-step the actual questions being asked here (twice now). Based
> on my past discussions with you, I generally take this to mean that you
> agree with the premise, but don't want to say so aloud. (Your brand of
> Wikimedia criticism is much more diplomatic than my own, to be sure.) If I'm
> wrong and you really do believe that this job opening is a good idea,
> perhaps you can explain why you think that. :-)

Here's one line of reasoning:

a) Our fundraising was effective (it brought in money) but also pretty
tedious for readers - it relied heavily on variants of one banner,
with the side-effect that millions upon millions of people were forced
to stare at one J. Wales for quite a while, only lightly alleviated by
staring at someone else for a short time before reverting to the
original.

b) This was widely derided (see discussions passim), with people
objecting to it for reasons including (in no particular order): i)
undue focus on "figurehead" personality; ii) stylistic issues; iii)
terminology (mostly of non-Wales banners, sometimes of letters); iv)
sheer tedium of seeing the same thing for a month; etc. etc. ...

c) ...but pretty much everything else we tried didn't work very well...

d) ...even though, anecdotally, people liked seeing the other ones
much more than they liked the routine banners.

e) Running another fundraiser is probably inevitable.

Given these points, it seems a good idea to try to ensure that when we
next throw big banners up at a million people to ask them for money,
we do so in a way that is less tedious and irritating. It seems a
fairly good approach (anecdotally, at least) that people like the
varied individual user banners; the problem is that there's something
not quite working about them.

Hiring someone to make them work - thus allowing us to do away with
the All Wales, All The Time approach which was, to say the least, not
universally loved - will hopefully mean the next donation campaign
annoys fewer people. That doesn't seem too unreasonable, to me.

(The actual job description did make my eyes roll a bit, though.
"Storyteller", oh dear.)

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Did autocomplete change your sentence Fred? I don't follow and it doesn't seem to relate to MZMcBride's new question about naming.

--
Dan Rosenthal

Sent from my iPhone. My apologies for any brevity.

On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:33 PM, "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud@fairpoint.net> wrote:

>> Is there something wrong with it
>> being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only
>> one
>> confused about this.
>>
>> MZMcBride
>
> There is plenty wrong with messing with us. This is hardly the first
> time. I doubt advancing the project is on your agenda.
>
> Fred
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Le 01/03/2011 18:31, Michael Snow a écrit :
> On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote:
>> If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of the
>> reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat.
> Based on the one survey of former contributors that has been conducted
> (see
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results),
> this doesn't figure highly enough to demonstrate the kind of significant
> minority you suggest. Rather, the concerns of those surveyed are
> overwhelmingly about how rulebound, overly complex, and unfriendly their
> work in the community seemed to be. Perhaps somebody would care to go
> back through the full survey responses and see if they can identify
> comments that fit the "I was being exploited" line you're pushing here.
> I would prefer to hope that as the foundation's community department
> works to develop the fundraising and messaging, it will also create and
> improve upon initiatives that lead to a better community environment, as
> that seems to be the dominant problem.

Thank you for your answer Michael. However:
«Note that this survey was aimed at less experienced editors. »

I remember for example that many administrators quit during the sexual
content controversy because of the decision of Jimbo. Those people were
driven by a vision of a certain type of governance and felt betrayed or
disappointed.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

________________________________
From: MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 3:24:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening

Zack Exley wrote:
> But there is one important purpose of that job that may be a bit hidden in
> between the lines: For this position, I'm looking for someone who can help
> free us from dependence on "The Jimmy Letter" in fundraising.

I think part of my confusion (maybe the biggest chunk of it) comes from
terminology and naming. I guess you're not really trying to hire a
"storyteller," you're trying to hire a "public relations (fundraising)"
person. One title is obviously a bit more poetic, but also a lot more
confusing, I think.

The other aspect to this that's confusing to me is the underlying purpose of
the "Community Department." Best as I can tell, it's largely focused on
fundraising. Is there a description of the current "Community Department"
that clarifies what it does (other than fundraising)? I'm not saying that
Wikimedia shouldn't have a team devoted to fundraising, but I don't really
understand why it's named the way it is. Is there something wrong with it
being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only one
confused about this.


It makes sense to me that there would be a lot of overlap on the ground
delivering the two messages "We are a worthwhile project and you can join us and
contribute on our websites" and "We are a worthwhile project and you can donate
some money to the supporting Foundation".


Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want and they
choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general
need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This situation
strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public relations
material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of
applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the
other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring you have
done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what their
"job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they
believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you want a new
employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a more
open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to apply
for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit. Narrow
and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging and
uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening.

Birgitte SB




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:52 AM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
> > On 1 March 2011 19:35, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm curious how
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller
> >> fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan.
> >
> > It's pretty much directly answered right there on the linked page, for
> > anyone else who's wondering.
> >
> > What bit of the page wasn't clear?
>
> The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's
> mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a
> Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a very finite
> amount
> of resources for staff hires; I just don't see how this passes any type of
> reasonable cost/benefit analysis.
>
> If it's the outside world's perception of Wikimedia that is the underlying
> concern, I think hiring someone whose job description includes "make
> something incredibly beautiful every month" might be more detrimental to
> Wikimedia's image and mission than anything else. There are a lot of people
> who would be (more) willing to donate to Wikimedia if they didn't feel
> their
> donations would be spent like this, in my view.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


+1 for calling the title 'Propaganda Minister'. Raconteur would be my second
choice.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Jason donovan <jdoe99d@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:52 AM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>
> > David Gerard wrote:
> > > On 1 March 2011 19:35, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm curious how
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller
> > >> fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan.
> > >
> > > It's pretty much directly answered right there on the linked page, for
> > > anyone else who's wondering.
> > >
> > > What bit of the page wasn't clear?
> >
> > The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's
> > mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a
> > Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a very finite
> > amount
> > of resources for staff hires; I just don't see how this passes any type
> of
> > reasonable cost/benefit analysis.
> >
> > If it's the outside world's perception of Wikimedia that is the
> underlying
> > concern, I think hiring someone whose job description includes "make
> > something incredibly beautiful every month" might be more detrimental to
> > Wikimedia's image and mission than anything else. There are a lot of
> people
> > who would be (more) willing to donate to Wikimedia if they didn't feel
> > their
> > donations would be spent like this, in my view.
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> +1 for calling the title 'Propaganda Minister'. Raconteur would be my
> second
> choice.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


We think so little about our community that we have to hire someone to
figure out how to explain it.

--
*Mono*
http://enwp.org/m:User:Mono
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 1 March 2011 23:41, The Mono <mono@mono.x10.bz> wrote:

> We think so little about our community that we have to hire someone to
> figure out how to explain it.


I expect your volunteer efforts were factored into the decision.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I'm not with the WMF, to clarify.

Your point stands, however, as the WMF team rarely contributes to content on
the wikis they know so much about.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:45 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1 March 2011 23:41, The Mono <mono@mono.x10.bz> wrote:
>
> > We think so little about our community that we have to hire someone to
> > figure out how to explain it.
>
>
> I expect your volunteer efforts were factored into the decision.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
*Mono*
http://enwp.org/m:User:Mono
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 3/1/2011 2:41 PM, Pronoein wrote:
> Le 01/03/2011 18:31, Michael Snow a écrit :
>> On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote:
>>> If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of the
>>> reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat.
>> Based on the one survey of former contributors that has been conducted
>> (see
>> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results),
>> this doesn't figure highly enough to demonstrate the kind of significant
>> minority you suggest. Rather, the concerns of those surveyed are
>> overwhelmingly about how rulebound, overly complex, and unfriendly their
>> work in the community seemed to be. Perhaps somebody would care to go
>> back through the full survey responses and see if they can identify
>> comments that fit the "I was being exploited" line you're pushing here.
>> I would prefer to hope that as the foundation's community department
>> works to develop the fundraising and messaging, it will also create and
>> improve upon initiatives that lead to a better community environment, as
>> that seems to be the dominant problem.
> Thank you for your answer Michael. However:
> «Note that this survey was aimed at less experienced editors. »
>
> I remember for example that many administrators quit during the sexual
> content controversy because of the decision of Jimbo. Those people were
> driven by a vision of a certain type of governance and felt betrayed or
> disappointed.
I acknowledge the limitations of the survey, and as always would be
thrilled if we had more and better data. But since you were connecting
your thesis to a broad systemic trend, I considered it more useful to
look at evidence of systemic trends, not anecdotal reactions to a single
incident. In terms of volunteer motivation, I'd have to think being
"driven by a vision of a certain type of governance" has to rank pretty
low, considering that our mission has nothing to do with promoting any
particular vision in that field. A survey of former administrators or
something like that might be informative, certainly, if somebody is
available to drive that. My guess is that compared with other former
volunteers, their responses would have more similarity than difference.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l