--- On Thu, 7/1/10, David Goodman <dgoodma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The basic reason why doing things by staff rather than
> volunteers is
> wrong is that it decreases one of the motivations for
> volunteering--the knowledge that one can participate
> significantly in
> not just the work but the decisions, and become influential
> in
> whatever activity within the project that one chooses.
>
There is a danger in doing things by staff rather than volunteer but I cannot
agree that it is always wrong.
Volunteers do not always emerge. There are real logistical and cultural
barriers that prevent the proven template of projects wholly launched and
directed by self-selected volunteers from succeeding in the global south.
Should we just say that it is too bad that they can't get with our program? Or
should we experiment with another template that might make those wikis succeed?
I don't think that using staff there to be a bad idea.
I don't think staff replacing what volunteers are doing to be a big problem
with WMF. Mostly they seem to be doing things that volunteers are *not* doing.
I do understand your point about volunteers needing to be influential and
empowered in order for the model to work. But frankly I think your concern is
based on an assumption that the WMF is more influential than it really is. I
don’t think that WMF’s failure to engage better with volunteers is harmful to
the motivation of the volunteers, but rather it is harmful to the WMF. If the
WMF is often an outside party to the volunteers for all practical purposes, at
least is an outside party well aligned with goals of the volunteers. And if
that ever fails to be true it is not the volunteers that I think would be
driven away.
Birgitte SB
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
