[Wikipedia-l] Re: Paid-for-articles WPs in smaller languages

[Guaka]

> But you raise an important issue, which is whether *we* as an 
> *organisation* should financially help similar ideas (ie, paying 
> editors). Of course, this requires specific requirements (such as 
> control, validation of final quality, starting language with few editors 
> expected, local organisers etc...), but on the concept, should we or 
> should we not ?

I guess *we* is the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't think Wikimedia should
fund projects that pay editors. There are plenty of NGO's and there is
plenty of money going into development projects for developing
countries. Lots of that money is spent on expensive plane flights and
big salaries to send white people to poor countries. So what we (as in
the broader Wikipedia community) can do is try to get some of that money
to develop projects we think can make a difference, by directly paying
many people in poor countries (as opposed to several politicians and big
men gaining lots of bribes).

> You are perfectly allright : till now, editors have always been 
> volunteers. Which could be the consequences that start paying some, even 
> if it is on a small and little know language ?

Bambara is spoken by more than 10 million people and if you include
Dioula and other Mande languages we're probably talking about 30 million
people who are able to understand it (if it's spoken out, hence the
importance of creating .oggs once there is substantial material).

That it is little known is basically due to the fact that it is spoken
by poor people, and hardly ever read or written.

> Given that the goal of the Foundation is "to encouraging the growth, 
> development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to 
> providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public 
> free of charge", I would say that supporting such projects (ie, paying 
> editors in certain specific conditions) is within our area of action. 
> What I do not know is whether it would be acceptable to do it with 
> donation money, or if grants should be seek (sought ?) to support such 
> an involvement. I would really welcome opinions on this. In the past 
> year, I have seen little criticizing (as opposed to supporting) comments 
> related to the way the Foundation money should be spent, but for 
> comments saying (a year ago) that developers should get paid in 
> priorities before Angie and my costs be reimbursed, or comments saying 
> (early 2005) that with all the money we got, the website should be more 
> accessible.

If Wikimedia Foundation starts a fund raising for specifically this
goal, that would be fine. But people who donated often donated the money
for having more reliable access. They _could_ be disappointed to see
that the money is being used to pay people to write articles. But again,
we (community) can find the money elsewhere - and Wikimedia can endorse
such projects.

> Perhaps a beginning of an answer would be that current developers do not 
> seem overall to be mad with the idea of Chad and Brion be paid, while 
> they are not. It may be because they consider Brion has been working a 
> lot for the project and deserve to be partially paid by the Foundation, 
> it may be because they consider that Chad work is required and can not 
> be done any more by Jimbo. In short, it is acceptable because one is 
> known and loved, and acceptable because the other is seen as doing a 
> mandatory job. I am not sure, not being in the developer team. I suppose 
> participation to such project will be possibly acceptable to editors if 
> they can see where the benefits stands. Just thoughts. Waiting for all 
> of yours.

There is a huge difference between paying developers to improve the
access to Wikipedia and to paying contributors. Wikimedia should make
sure Wikimedia (and especially its servers) keeps online.

Guaka!