On 04/01/2008, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: To be honest, I'd rather they learn from Wikipedia than by the method my sister (currently during her first year of clinical) is learning by. Their philosophy is "See one, do one, teach one", that is, they are learning by watching someone do a procedure once when that person has only done it once before and that was after watching it done just once. I think I'm going to avoid getting sick... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I have never been more inspired than now to start up "selfdiagnosipedia". People can now be empowered with the knowledge that their internet assisted diagnosis really is just as good as the real thing! This will be a glorious victory for new parents and old people everywhere! Of course, I am fine at the moment, but I am diagnosing my friends and family with all sorts of serious ailments right now!

Could paid editing could actually be lucrative enough to cover tuition, textbooks, lab fees, room and board, food, even the average student's vodka intake? Unlikely, but I'd hesitate to say impossible.

On 1/7/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think you misunderstood the hypothetical scenario, which is based on the premise that editing Wikipedia is more exciting than mowing lawns, flipping burgers, or selling products door-to-door (to cover any extant deficiency in financial aid). Incidentally I'm sure some would dispute this premise. Obviously one would go to med school to pursue their own dream of becoming a surgeon or a dermatologist or whatever.

However, all this might actually be a good idea. Paying students to edit Wikipedia might be a way of funding research into new knowledge and also help receive current knowledge in a form suitable for Wikipedia. Obviously, one would have to find funding for such a thing. AFAIR, the German Wikipedia received funding from the German government and a private company for a project that was used for paid contributors.

We've had some great stuff from students set the assignment of writing for Wikipedia *and having to do so in a manner acceptable to Wikipedia*. e.g.

On Jan 7, 2008 12:06 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Who would pay? Especially with the likelihood that whatever is written won't live for very long in the same form, but will be modified (and in the mind of a grantor, can be modified by any non-expert).

Who would pay? Especially with the likelihood that whatever is written won't live for very long in the same form, but will be modified (and in the mind of a grantor, can be modified by any non-expert).

I'm sorry Charlotte, but there is simply no way to avoid having at least ten more posts arguing about it. This is WikiEn-L.

On 1/7/08, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: You all are missing the point, which is that I briefly considered the possibility that people editing Wikipedia on behalf of some governmental or corporate entity either as a direct employee or as a subcontracted spin-doctor, might actually be very good at it, and earn enough money to pursue a path toward a more noble profession, if medicine can even be considered such. That's all, thanks, I'll shut up now. —C.W.

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 17:06 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote: Not necessarily, in my opinion. I believe that anybody who has managed to get into university and has at least spend a term there knows how to research facts and source/cite them using the citation methods used on Wikipedia.

I'm not sure what country you are referring to, but from my experience getting into a decent university on a satisfactory course one should at least have some good grades and a decent character. I try not to be biased, but the American system seems to be slightly more acceptable to people with lower qualifications or less motivation. Obviously, if this were to be planned one would need criteria having to be met (for example one can only be paid for edits on articles from ones field of study).

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:03 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote: Well, having attended Beijing Language and Culture University I can confirm that Chinese universities are intend of quite a good standard and that entry requirements are quite hight - both academically and financially. On the matter of UK universities, where I now attend [[SOAS]], I agree that quality differs. I wonder if the Wikimedia Foundation would be interested in such an idea in the future. In my opinion this would be a fantastic idea for all parties involved.

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:36 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote: I'm not suggesting that the WMF would back this directly, as I fully understand that they need money currently for things with a much larger priority. However, having the support of the WMF would be fantastic for getting such outside backing. However, I fear that the WMF might see this as money going somewhere else that could have been going to them. Ian [[User:Poeloq]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 07/01/2008, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: It doesn't need to. There is no reason for paid editors to have any priority over unpaid ones. In fact, I imagine they would be considered a lower tier and would be monitored more closely that other users by the community. It wouldn't be an investment, it would be a charitable donation. What content they work on would be determined by the person paying, I guess, although hopefully they would listen to the community for guidance. As for the quality - it's up to the person paying to make sure the people being paid are suitably qualified, that's why I'm suggesting targeting post-grads.

Paying guarantees work will be done, not that the work will be good. Paying per article in fact invites just the opposite. I would be extremely dubious of any articles introduced in this manner, no matter what the university, just as i would of any COI. Being paid to edit is the ultimate in COI. I would advise WMF to stay as far a way from this as possible. On Jan 7, 2008 2:56 PM, Ian A Holton <poeloq(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 19:28 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > On 07/01/2008, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Just to outline some other quick issues... > > > > > > Paid editors backed by a Foundation initiative inserts a tiered class > > > of editors, where we haven't had such a thing in the past (debatably). > > > > It doesn't need to. There is no reason for paid editors to have any > > priority over unpaid ones. In fact, I imagine they would be considered > > a lower tier and would be monitored more closely that other users by > > the community. > > > > > Who would pay for such a thing, even as a project to support > > > Wikipedia? The money isn't going to WMF, its going to private > > > individuals to insert content of uncertain quality that may not last > > > out the day, let alone forever. > > > > > > Who determines what type of content gets added? Do they only work on > > > redlinks? Some of them are fairly obscure for general curriculum > > > students. Can they edit articles of the sponsoring institution? > > > > > > Finally, why would the WMF want to endorse the idea of folks getting > > > paid for editing? Since no monetary reward comes directly from this > > > activity, only by skewing the content to the benefit of the sponsoring > > > institution can an investment be recouped. > > > > It wouldn't be an investment, it would be a charitable donation. What > > content they work on would be determined by the person paying, I > > guess, although hopefully they would listen to the community for > > guidance. As for the quality - it's up to the person paying to make > > sure the people being paid are suitably qualified, that's why I'm > > suggesting targeting post-grads. > > Nathan, you raised some very important points. I will try and answer > them as exact as possible in the early stages of my idea: > > Why pay people to contribute? Because it guarantees decent work be done > by somebody and offers an incentive. It also supports students to obtain > the degrees they are pursuing and therefor helps society in general. > > What contents gets added? This depends on many factors. The way I > imagine it would be as follows: a student of Economics works on > Economics related articles, a student of Philosophy on Philosophy and so > on. All other contributions will not be paid for, however I believe they > will still be made by the editors in question. > > Why the WMF would or even should be interested? Because it will benefit > Wikipedia and that is one of the main objectives of the WMF. > > Who would sponsor such editors? This is the tricky one. I think the > concept of paying editors like it is a job would not work very well, why > would it? I think the best idea is to reimburse them for their time > spent on working on related articles. I also believe that one of the > main objectives would be to gain the support of other charities. For > example: The (I will make the names up, any existing names are > coincidence) "Society for Chinese History in the US" has an interest in > promoting Chinese History, so they could be approached for a donation of > say $100 that pays some students of Chinese (History) to extend a > certain amount of articles to a point of acceptability. What is the > point of acceptability? At least GA quality I would say or a large > amount of good start class etc. > > The main criteria to be eligble for payment would be that all edits are > conform to existing policy and are of the highest quality in the sense > that they are well sourced and cited. Language abilities should at least > be good (wording can always be changed by other editors). > > Does this explain a little bit more of what I am imagining could be the > future? > > Regards, > > Ian [[User:Poeloq]] >

It makes it quite likely, it certainly doesn't guarantee it.

Charlotte Webb schrieb: "Dermatologist is Greek for 'fake doctor'" -Dr. Cox As with most topics, Wikipedia articles are quite useful to gain a quick overview, and to estimate relative importance of involved aspects and understand the basic structure of a topic which can be tedious (and awesome, literally, in areas like physiology) using several standard textbooks when you're getting started to prepare for a test. Also, studies on preservation of basic knowledge with practising physicians suggest they (and not only students) should use a readily available online source like Wikipedia a lot more frequently. Far too many of them don't even know some of the basics like ideal blood pressure etcpp and they don't have the time to look all of this up time and again. And textbooks, especially in the field of clinical medicine, can become quickly and utterly outdated as the latest research is made available and finds its way into advanced training. It's not like they have to rely on wikinformation(tm) from articles about e.g. World War II or Star Wars. ''That'' would be reason to worry.