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

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthere wrote:

>
>
> Ray Saintonge a écrit:
> > V. Ivanov wrote:
> >
> >> 2005/5/28, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net>:
> >>
> >>> Maybe we should make this concept better known globally.  Maybe we
> >>> should organise a list of Wikipedians who are prepared to give 
> money to
> >>> poor people in return for an article in a language that has an 
> inactive
> >>> Wikipedia.  The Wikipedians would be able to specify any conditions,
> >>
> >> Say, offer a preferable topic or even a certain article (or article 
> set).
> >>
> > I would be wary of any scheme to pay people for articles.  We have
> > prided ourselves on an all volunteer production in all languages.
> >
> > The one thing that is not mentioned in the discussion is who would fund
> > this proposal.  Is there a rich Ossetian benefactor willing to pay for
> > this idea?  There are many other languages that could benefit from this
> > approach, but it should not be the responsibility of the general
> > community to pay for such things in other languages either.
>
> Hi Ec
>
> This is not a proposal, it already exist.
> It is currently funded by individuals, who may or may not be 
> contributors. I just do not know.
>
> We do not have to say anything about this, it exists, it is 
> independant and anyone should be free to find a way to help promote 
> one language. I think the best *we* can do as *editors*, is to help 
> them in their organisation, and also help them transform these 
> teachers in more permanent editors in the long term (feeling proud of 
> a good article featured on home page is one of these ways... there are 
> others...). Typical limitation could be "we offer you money for a good 
> article, but for no more than xx articles". 

I'm satisfied to know that the funding for this is local.  As long as 
it's clear that the funding for this sort of thing comes from a local 
organization there can be no liability by WMF in general for unkept 
promises or other legal problems.  Perhaps it would be good to have a 
written policy by the Board disclaiming responsibility for local 
activity, which would be the subject of local law.

The more positive attitude that I have is that funding from people 
directly interested in a language will do more for that Wikipedia (or 
Wiktionary) than any kind of advocating that someone like Mark would 
do.  Those of us who to whom Ossetian and Bambara are nothing more than 
entries in a dictionary of languages can do nothing practical about the 
development of Wikis in those languages.  Local organizations should 
also feel free to seek government funding for work on their own 
language.  African governments are notoriously poor, and cannot be 
expected to do much, but even they can gain better support from their 
own population by investing small amounts in the right places.  Small 
amounts invested by an African government to protect local culture from 
aggressive foreign languages may be more productive than anything that 
Mr. Chirac can sapend in support of his own seriously endangered language.

> 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 ? 

No minor language project can succeed unles it has at least one highly 
dedicated who can guide the project through its infancy, and begin to 
attract others to the project.  The down side of this is that a new 
project may express a strong POV on such delicate subjects as Ossetian 
independance.  Beyond those early days when the need is to develop 
functioning software, the next test becomes how it deals with other 
personalities that have an equally strong butdifferent POV.

> 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 ? 

Again, to have a sucessful project the initiative must come from those 
who would belong to that project, not from those of us sitting in our 
rich country idealism.  We can make them aware of the possibilities; we 
can even supply hardware.  Beyond that it's up to them.  A football team 
that does not kick the ball does not win.

> As a reminder, only 3 people have till now financially directly making 
> benefits. Larry initially, now Brion and Chad Perrin. Another person 
> should soon be welcome as well to help with the paperwork. The three 
> last people concerned, paid by or soon to be paid by the Foundation, 
> have received the approval from Jimbo, Angela and myself... and that 
> the three are americans exclusively. Other benefits made in terms of 
> "personal income" were non direct (such as development contracts with 
> other organisations). 

Larry was probably a necessary wet nurse in his time.  While Jimbe 
likely needed to more directly spend time with the infrastructure then, 
engineering a working model of the intellectual structure was a big 
job.  The initiator of a new project should not need to worry about 
infrastructure or the development of a working model.  He can be more 
quickly involved with content. Brion and Chad are not being paid for 
content, but for more technical services that couldn't be done 
otherwise.  We can accomodate dilletantes among content providers where 
we have many.  There are as many dilletantes in the world of software 
development, often with many ideas and little practical experience.  In 
that environment a hired cat-herder is very important. 

I'm not up-to-date on the need for a paperwork person, but it's easy to 
imagine that need in an organisation that's so big.  I appreciate your 
point about the positions being filled by Americans.  For Chad's 
position I don't think that other viable options were available, and 
Brion is probably the best person for the job, nationality 
notwithstanding.  I can't comment on the paperwork person, because I 
don't know exactly what needs to be done, though I suspect much of it 
may have to do with preparing reports to comply with American laws.  The 
role of Americans in many international situations is a very sensitive 
issue with many competing facets that go beyond our little project.  It 
would be unwise for me to go further down that road at this time.

> 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. 

Since you raised the point, "sought" is the correct usage there.

I oppose a general policy of paying editors.  The effect of that is to 
set up two classes of editors, and that results in quite a different 
dynamicamong the editors.  Even if it becomes necessary to pay someone 
to provide organizational coherence to a specific project, it should be 
made clear that he is not being paid to edit.  Such paid jobs should 
have a limited duration with no possibility of rehiring for a period of 
time that is at least twice as long as the job lasted.

Reimbursing someone for her proper expenses is completely different from 
paying that person for the job that she does.  I think that the comments 
that you cite are made out of ignorance by someone who has never had to 
do business.  If you need to travel somewhere as an official 
representative of the  WMF you certainly should not need to pay for your 
own plane fare

> So, I am not sure whether it would be globally acceptable, borderline 
> but acceptable, or frankly unacceptable to the editors or not.
>
> 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 are two aspects of such hiring decisions: do we need to fill such 
a position, and who should be that person.  If we don't need to hire 
somebody it is pointless to look for somebody to hire.  The job needs to 
be defined first.

Ec