3 ms·

Maybe maybe. But most of the large organisations you are refering to make the money they pay their waste^Wmanagers with not from donations, and are typically a

Maybe maybe. But most of the large organisations you are refering to make the money they pay their waste^Wmanagers with not from donations, and are typically also not relying on so much volunteer work. In my book, it is totally fine to demand that organisations that are largely based on volunteer work and dontations dont pay the typical manager salaries. Why should we look away if a mostly-volunteer driven project gets cancer? Why should we ignore the cancer? Just because other companies have cancer too?

zozbot234 5y ago
Profit seeking organizations have residual claimants who are directly incented to cut the waste, and they still get cancer. This ought to suggest to us how hard the problem really is. ISTM that the only viable solution is federation, where multiple, independent, small, tightly-knit organizations cooperate on the shared goal of hosting content, media, etc. on real-world entities and topics. But, ironically enough, Wikidata and other Wikimedia projects are the closest thing we have to something that might actually enable this development! (The former in its de-facto role as a semantically-enhanced "web directory" of entity identifiers; the latter via the "right to fork" that's inherent in all free-content licenses.)
kaba0 5y ago
How about considering it not cancer but necessarily inefficiency? Like, are you angry at your car for not being 100% efficient?
- mlang23 5y ago
  "necessarily inefficiency"? what sort of legitimation is this? Besides, I dont own a car.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Okay, your computer is far from 100% efficiency, nor any appliance in your home, nor for-profit companies, nothing is. Why are we so outraged when a non-profit company doing great work is also inefficient a bit?
    - mlang23 5y ago
      Because it is strictly unfair to volunteers. Volunteers do most of the important work, and usually get no pay at all. So why should managers get paid and everyone should look away and just call it an inefficientcy?

zozbot234 5y ago

Profit seeking organizations have residual claimants who are directly incented to cut the waste, and they still get cancer. This ought to suggest to us how hard the problem really is. ISTM that the only viable solution is federation, where multiple, independent, small, tightly-knit organizations cooperate on the shared goal of hosting content, media, etc. on real-world entities and topics. But, ironically enough, Wikidata and other Wikimedia projects are the closest thing we have to something that might actually enable this development! (The former in its de-facto role as a semantically-enhanced "web directory" of entity identifiers; the latter via the "right to fork" that's inherent in all free-content licenses.)

kaba0 5y ago

How about considering it not cancer but necessarily inefficiency? Like, are you angry at your car for not being 100% efficient?

mlang23 5y ago
"necessarily inefficiency"? what sort of legitimation is this? Besides, I dont own a car.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Okay, your computer is far from 100% efficiency, nor any appliance in your home, nor for-profit companies, nothing is. Why are we so outraged when a non-profit company doing great work is also inefficient a bit?
  - mlang23 5y ago
    Because it is strictly unfair to volunteers. Volunteers do most of the important work, and usually get no pay at all. So why should managers get paid and everyone should look away and just call it an inefficientcy?