Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • I'm late to read this, because by the time you wrote it I was on a long vacation. Now I'm back, and it's given me something to chew on. The truth is, most of the people I've spoken with intuitively grasp the idea you're talking about very quickly. Even in the most reductionist view, it's plainly obvious that every visit to the site originates on the back of someone's contribution. Perhaps a bit contrary to popular belief, but I'd actually say most people internally do logically understand this idea. Commented Jan 15 at 22:31
  • Now, this isn't a satisfactory response to your answer whatsoever. In fact it not only leaves the core line of thinking unresolved, it further complicates it. "If people get it, then why [gestures broadly] all this?" And it's a fair question to ask. I don't have a clear answer to share, but I can share a little of how I'm thinking about it. Commented Jan 15 at 22:33
  • For any action that we take (by which I mean the company as a whole) that apparently fails to treat volunteers well, one of the following must be true: a) It was the about best we could do with the knowledge and skills available to us; b) Our understanding of the problem we were solving was inaccurate; c) Our understanding of what it means to treat volunteers well was incorrect in that context. Commented Jan 15 at 22:40
  • The problem comes in when I assert that people do generally understand the importance of treating the volunteers here well, that the people are important. Because it means the problem is necessarily more subtle than a simple failure to grok the importance of volunteer work. And honestly, imo? When we take actions that appear to undervalue volunteers, all three can be root causes. Sometimes these actions really are the best we can do. Sometimes our understanding of the problem was inaccurate. Sometimes we did not understand how to treat volunteers well. Commented Jan 15 at 22:43
  • But at the same time, my response to your answer sort of sucks, because it takes a fairly simple thread and turns it into an absolute mess. So it's quite unsatisfying. It's also not useful as a framework, because it doesn't really get us closer to understanding what we need to do about it. So there's more to think about here. Commented Jan 15 at 22:44
  • @Slate Thank you for the time you took to offer those thoughts. My only reply is to ask that the company reassess how and why it made the moves (in my view detrimental) as regards the community managers. Here are some thoughts by a once diamond mod that is probably not uncommon. Commented Jan 16 at 14:52