3 ms·

If you have money to pay the bills for infrastructure but not money to pay someone to take over when a person who's not getting paid stops being interested enou

by cxr 3y ago

If you have money to pay the bills for infrastructure but not money to pay someone to take over when a person who's not getting paid stops being interested enough to prop up the project, then you don't have money to continue.

bawolff 3y ago
As far as i understand, the new people aren't getting paid either unless i missed something, and the new people aren't exactly "new" either just a different subset of organizers.
- cxr 3y ago
  > the new people aren't getting paid either This changes nothing about what I just stated. Why is the general tone of your comment written as if it does?
  - jemmyw 3y ago
    Well it does because it shows there are people willing and able to take over without being paid, therefore your comment about not having enough money because they cannot pay seems redundant.
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    Your statement assumes they need to pay someone to keep going, which as the previous poster points out is not true if they can find new unpaid volunteers, as indeed seems to have happened. And since we're talking wikis here, please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith when people comment on what you've written.
    - labster 3y ago
      From my experience talking to bawolff on WMF's Phabricator, we can definitely assume good faith.
    - cxr 3y ago
      > Your statement assumes they need to pay someone to keep going No it doesn't. A person who says e.g., "If you have diabetes, you need to mindful of your insulin and blood sugar levels", is not assuming a given person has diabetes. That's not how conditional claims are read. > [and it's] not true if they can find new unpaid volunteers Wrong; even if they can (and have), what I stated still remains true. > And since we're talking wikis here, please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith when people comment on what you've written. Wikipedia's "Assume Good Faith" guideline is exactly that—a Wikipedia guideline—and has no intrinsic connection to wikis. Aside from that, the tendency for Wikipedians to admonish their opponent by citing WP:AGF specifically for the purpose of implicitly accusing the other side of (willfully or not) choosing not to observe/respect the rules of decorum—and thus themselves operating in contravention of the very guideline they're citing—is perverse but unfortunately entirely too common. Invoking the shibboleth is certainly one of Wikipedia's most baffling traditions.
      - blechinger 3y ago
        The biting antagonism of your message's tone undermines it's content. Even so you've chosen to die on a strange hill. What you seem to be arguing for is conditional on how "money to to continue" is understood in this context. While I believe I understand your point: it's moot. A continuation has occurred. A continuation is occuring. If your assertions were correct that would not be possible.
        cxr 3y ago
        Whose strange hill are we talking about? > A continuation has occurred. A continuation is occuring. If your assertions were correct that would not be possible. Again, wrong. I'm pretty well-acquainted with what I said. Go reply (antagonistically) to someone whose remarks actually contain the defects you so badly wish mine contained (to the point that you're willing to ignore what I've actually written and substitute whatever it is you're imagining me to have said in its place).
        3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by cxr 3y ago

bawolff 3y ago

As far as i understand, the new people aren't getting paid either unless i missed something, and the new people aren't exactly "new" either just a different subset of organizers.

cxr 3y ago
> the new people aren't getting paid either This changes nothing about what I just stated. Why is the general tone of your comment written as if it does?
- jemmyw 3y ago
  Well it does because it shows there are people willing and able to take over without being paid, therefore your comment about not having enough money because they cannot pay seems redundant.
- resolutebat 3y ago
  Your statement assumes they need to pay someone to keep going, which as the previous poster points out is not true if they can find new unpaid volunteers, as indeed seems to have happened. And since we're talking wikis here, please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith when people comment on what you've written.
  - labster 3y ago
    From my experience talking to bawolff on WMF's Phabricator, we can definitely assume good faith.
  - cxr 3y ago
    > Your statement assumes they need to pay someone to keep going No it doesn't. A person who says e.g., "If you have diabetes, you need to mindful of your insulin and blood sugar levels", is not assuming a given person has diabetes. That's not how conditional claims are read. > [and it's] not true if they can find new unpaid volunteers Wrong; even if they can (and have), what I stated still remains true. > And since we're talking wikis here, please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith when people comment on what you've written. Wikipedia's "Assume Good Faith" guideline is exactly that—a Wikipedia guideline—and has no intrinsic connection to wikis. Aside from that, the tendency for Wikipedians to admonish their opponent by citing WP:AGF specifically for the purpose of implicitly accusing the other side of (willfully or not) choosing not to observe/respect the rules of decorum—and thus themselves operating in contravention of the very guideline they're citing—is perverse but unfortunately entirely too common. Invoking the shibboleth is certainly one of Wikipedia's most baffling traditions.
    - blechinger 3y ago
      The biting antagonism of your message's tone undermines it's content. Even so you've chosen to die on a strange hill. What you seem to be arguing for is conditional on how "money to to continue" is understood in this context. While I believe I understand your point: it's moot. A continuation has occurred. A continuation is occuring. If your assertions were correct that would not be possible.
      - cxr 3y ago
        Whose strange hill are we talking about? > A continuation has occurred. A continuation is occuring. If your assertions were correct that would not be possible. Again, wrong. I'm pretty well-acquainted with what I said. Go reply (antagonistically) to someone whose remarks actually contain the defects you so badly wish mine contained (to the point that you're willing to ignore what I've actually written and substitute whatever it is you're imagining me to have said in its place).
        3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]