[Advocacy Advisors] Which would help volunteer editors more?

Thu Nov 28 14:09:40 UTC 2013

On 27/11/13 02:24 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> The idea that the economic and physiological health of the editor
> pool isn't a large determinant of the proportion choosing to edit,
> if not the largest that we may have any meaningful control over
> after everything we've tried so far, simply does not seem
> defensible. What does it mean to empower a potential editor with
> the ability to share knowledge, if their circumstances leave them
> without the inclination to do so? That is the difference between
> empowering and merely enabling, is it not? A slightly more complete
> encyclopedia with society crumbling around it is not an improvement
> over a less complete  encyclopedia in symbiosis with a flourishing
> society.

Two points of disagreement:
* "that we may have any meaningful control over"
* "does not seem defensible"

I do not believe we have meaningful control over either the economic
or the physiological health of the editor pool. We do note even have
significant relevance to either hugely divergent measure.

Therefore it *is* completely defensible.

Until you can support your statements with objective, repeatable,
observations you should probably avoid castigating others for what is
your beliefs or moral codes. It tends to make people less aligned with
your goals because of their opposition to your methods.

Amgine