The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per improvement in article Spartaz Humbug! 21:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary slavery[edit]

Voluntary slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

contested prod removed without improvement to the article. Unreferenced WP:neologism

Comment- this could basically be used as an example of Community Service or Volunteering. Slavery is forced servitude. You can not be a voluntary slave.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary either.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBC had a discussion on unpaid workers[1] [2] on the web vs old style paying journalist. i guess you people don't know there really is Voluntary slavery out there. the example that was given was the Huntington Report where most of their journalist don't get paid. Jane Benn (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC) comment added by Jane Benn (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you prove any of this?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Could you provide a specific reference please? Saying you heard or saw something doesn't quite get it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an article on Voluntary slavery? did I miss something?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, you might be able to construct an article on "Unpaid journalism" because that term is used in the sources. Deciding for yourself that it constitutes "voluntary slavery" is original research and would probably be seen as extremely insulting to these journalists. We don't get paid to write Wikipedia articles either, that doesn't make us slaves. Volunteering to do something is not slavery. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Didn't the definition say free work for profit making organisations? Is Wikipedia a profit making organisations? One of the experts on the CBC radio show said: a few people making profits over the work of many working for free is not new. That sound like he meant slavery and if people are with there own free will helping others get rich by working for them for free it could be: Voluntary slavery. Jane Benn (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Voluntary slavery is deleted this discussion has been good. why aren't we being paid to make the entries in Wikipedia? why do web journalist overwelmingly get zip while others get rich over there labour? unpaid journalist might not be insulted but might demand payment if they knew they were Voluntary slaves. Jane Benn (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Content may well be king but it feels so wrong to me that the content on The Huffington Post is obtained for free by luring writers with promises of “visibility, promotion and distribution.” Sure, it cannot harm your career to have an article published on the site, something which I’m unlikely now ever to manage after writing this article, but there should surely be some monetary compensation for the writers involved." [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Benn (talk • contribs) 21:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • We aren't being paid because we're supposed to be doing this because we care. But you are right, it isn't exactly the same thing because Wikipedia is not-for-profit. But, don't these journalists know they aren't being paid? They weren't dragged out of their homes and chained to a desk and whipped if they didn't type fast enough (at least I hope not). Probably they do it for the same reason that actors appear in web-only tv shows for free: because they want the exposure and hope it will lead to actual paying work. Slavery is by it's very nature coercive, I don't see that here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Huffington Post CEO Betsy Morgan and co-founder Jonah Peretti dismissed criticisms that the liberal-leaning news aggregation site's traffic could plummet after 2008 election buzz quiets down, saying that over half the site's traffic now comes from its non-politics sections. "We're in six verticals, (and) we're going to many more," Morgan said. The Huffington Post now "employs" 1,600 unpaid bloggers but has fewer than 50 full-time employees, and has seen its traffic triple in the past seven months." [4]

"In December, the Huffington Post raised another $25 million in funding. It was riding a wave of popularity--and scrutiny, considering its controversial views on paying for content and labor--in the wake of the 2008 presidential election, and was starting to aggressively expand coverage beyond politics. Long-term profitability, however, was still a question mark.In December, the Huffington Post raised another $25 million in funding. It was riding a wave of popularity--and scrutiny, considering its controversial views on paying for content and labor--in the wake of the 2008 presidential election, and was starting to aggressively expand coverage beyond politics. Long-term profitability, however, was still a question mark." [5]

  • In the interest of putting this issue to bed: A fundamental condition of slavery is not being able to quit. Writing a blog for free is not slavey, no matter if someone else is making money off it. These bloggers probably enjoy what they are doing, or they wouldn't be doing it. None of which even matters if there are no sources that actually use the words "voluntary slavery." No sources, no verification, no article. Verifiability is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and is one of the few things on Wikipedia that is non-negotiable. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • we need to know what the expert ment by: "many people working for free to making a few rich is not a new thing" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.15 (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • why isn't any one trying to help save the article. if i hadn't participated in the debate it would have been deleted the first day it went up. Has anybody, among you, started, an article and it was deleted or do you only go around stopping othere who start articles? Jane Benn (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is trying to save it for all the reasons everyone has stated here. It fails the most fundamental criteria that must be met for an article. It can't be saved without verification. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that particular point, but that is the reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your frustration, Jane. I have also made a page and had it deleted. It was on a topic which I thought was clearly notable, but when I made it I failed to give enough sourcing for other editors to verify that. So the person who deleted it was acting perfectly reasonably. Still, I was a little upset by it - but instead of remaining so I went and collected some sources and (with a friend) rewrote the article. It's now here, and I don't see it being deleted again any time soon because it has numerous reliable sources which directly address the subject of the article. If you, or someone else, can find those for this topic then I'm sure we'll all be willing to support the article's inclusion - but sourcing of that type really is non-negotiable.
Also, as an aside, deletion discussions (and PRODs) are always left for at least seven days before anything's deleted - so there was no risk of it disappearing the day you made it if you didn't respond quickly enough. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's all there is to say (I'm assuming the source you cite specifically uses the term "voluntary slavery") then Merge with Slavery. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, based on your criteria that we re-evaluate based on how the article looks right now, I still say merge because it's a very short stub, with no prejudice against splitting it in the future if someone actually does expand it beyond it's current state. --Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm also not convinced by this rewrite that the topic needs its own article. The merge recommendation here is still the right one.--RadioFan (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept had significant usage in Greco-Roman times, it's hardly a neologism at least as far as written history goes. We could rename the article the Latin equivalent, but that almost never flies on the English wikipedia (maybe okay for Romanesque wiki's like French, Spanish, or Italian, but not this one). Far better this translation than its historical latin counterpart. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More