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.