Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
Interesting your question
Thanks for sharing
It is new to me what he wrote:
"Do you think it is necessary to spend resources in articles from paid contributors to leverage our knowledge?"
"Is this in line with a nonprofit's motto or has it become a business for a few?"
I know. PMI is a business too far for non profit. Including volunteers are non cost providers. It is not a concern, is just to understand the reality. Because of that, in my case, is a cost-benefit relationship the fact I decide to participate into PMI activities including it voluntary where cost and benefit in my case is not money related. Inside it is my own pried when the PMI publish my articles because I did not pay for tha and I did not received miney for that
I understand your point, the benefits can not be quantified in money only, there are other aspects , as publicity, reputation, etc...
Nevertheless , seeing questions offering to do mentoring it is commendable, but it is too much when they propose to train people for money, like this sentence "I offer free mentorship and paid training for all things Agile" for me this raises ethical questions. Advertising should be controlled only by PMI.
This type of issues in my case are driving me further and further away from the community since this is not reasonable for me, nor does it bring me any benefits beyond the knowledge they publish.
first, what I wrote, is my way of thinking but if you ask me I do not fully agree about the PMI tried to sell people that everything is "thinking in the community" instead it is a business. it is clear by facts that is not right. It is more and more visible that the PMI is too far to think into the community and more close to making business. About you state, that is because in this site I am participaring only in this forum and I have a blog that I did not update from time ago due to the policies about blogs. This site must be free at all to promote a knowledge base, that is what I firmly believe. Regarding your second statement I know what you are refering to, I saw the offering, but instead to be rejected by the community you see lot of people said "thank you" and because of that I did not write comments in that sense. Obviously I fully agree with you about the controll must be done by the community manager itself. And here comes (and perhaps you can see I write comemnts in the matter) where some kind of hypocrasy related to ethic comes. At the end, what people will do is exactly what you stated at the end. The question is "does that matter to the PMI?". It seems to me not.
If people are remunerated for articles here it should be indicated, it would be more ethical. I like to believe most are not paid for.
Or is the question do people paid to get their article published?
Should people participating freely here mention they do this and that all depend on where it is?
Any site/platform that is in the business of content has editorial calendars. These calendars allow the editors to plan content in advance and have a pipeline to fill the primary content slots (e.g., home page) that are the draw of the site. It is not unusual to have a fee paid for these “calendar based items” to provide the incentive and accountability to have quality content delivered on time. Without this apparatus, theme based content would be difficult to deliver.
I know you have expressed concern to the diversity of authors that get published on the home page. Even more the reason that authors should submit under the “Featured Article – Submission Guidelines” structure shown on the Contribute Content page. We all have the capability to get content posted on the home page if we follow the guidelines.
My question is based in true facts and is a result from an exchange of emails with a person with responsabilities in the social network and perform a function in the social network. The explanation that was gave to me was the following ( and I quote):
"We have two types of content authors on the site; paid contributors and volunteers. Our paid contributors have been with the site for 10+ years, have quality work and are given the theme of the month ahead of time".
Reading this sentence is easy to know who are the paid contributors , because only that one's know the theme in advance and write articles aligned with the current theme presented and every time it changes.
I'd agree with Vincent that it would be more transparent (not necessarily ethical) to identify certain articles as being "paid for".
As someone who used to write "for pay" for a different site, I can attest that this takes away a lot of the intrinsic motivation for writing quality articles. After a few years of doing that, I stopped but am still continuing to do my own (unpaid) weekly writing...
Please login or join to reply