The following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Now...
is to a deletion debate on a page for bounties (cash etc) for bits of work on the project. I believe such a page would be a good thing. Arguments in favour follow:
It's worked fine, as far as I can tell, on the German edition since last July, and in a number of free software/open source communities. Some people have argued that selfless altruism is the ideal goal for Wikipedian motives. I disagree. Altruism is good if you can get it, but most people work on Wikipedia for a variety of additional reasons: for fun, to practice a language, to gain a reputation, to socialise, to document their POV, and so on. We don't need to worry so much about motives, but rather whether people follow policy in their editing. We should encourage reward systems where we can do so without compromising our goals.
Others have argued that the lure of cash would cause people to pay others to insert their bias and such. Of course, this is a risk with or without a bounty board, but at least we can monitor and police this page. Moreover, Wikipedia mechanisms are quite robust against POV pushers, regardless of motivation. We deal daily with people with strong views on religion, politics, ethics etc, yet we cope well -- and as we probably all know, people get more passionate about these things than any financial pressure could induce.
Wikipedians will always be volunteers. But cash is useful for Wikipedians. For example, we now demand, and rightly, reliable sources for facts. But it's the case that acquiring reliable sources can be an expensive activity.
-- Matt [[User:Matt Crypto]]
On 18/04/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Now...
is to a deletion debate on a page for bounties (cash etc) for bits of work on the project. I believe such a page would be a good thing. Arguments in favour follow:
Yeck, why do people use AfD in this way? Debate the point, refute it, gain consensus and drive it into the ground, by all means. But don't simply call the mayor and get it bulldozed on a technicality...
Steve
On 4/18/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Yeck, why do people use AfD in this way? Debate the point, refute it, gain consensus and drive it into the ground, by all means. But don't simply call the mayor and get it bulldozed on a technicality...
Steve
It forces the debate to be concluded and it forces those who want it kept too debate.
-- geni
On 4/18/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/18/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Yeck, why do people use AfD in this way? Debate the point, refute it, gain consensus and drive it into the ground, by all means. But don't simply call the mayor and get it bulldozed on a technicality...
Steve
It forces the debate to be concluded and it forces those who want it kept too debate.
I agree with Geni. The creation of a page is a proposal, which may or may not be accepted or acceptable to the community. I voted "Keep" despite the fact that I am not certain that I favour the idea, because I prefer that it be a discussion, not a vote. *fD creates votes, it forces you to pick a side...
Ian
I prefer it is tried first before we judge what "might" happen. So far I've seen no significant problems with the idea yet.
On 4/18/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/18/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/18/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Yeck, why do people use AfD in this way? Debate the point, refute it, gain consensus and drive it into the ground, by all means. But don't simply call the mayor and get it bulldozed on a technicality...
Steve
It forces the debate to be concluded and it forces those who want it kept too debate.
I agree with Geni. The creation of a page is a proposal, which may or may not be accepted or acceptable to the community. I voted "Keep" despite the fact that I am not certain that I favour the idea, because I prefer that it be a discussion, not a vote. *fD creates votes, it forces you to pick a side...
Ian _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 18/04/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Geni. The creation of a page is a proposal, which may or may not be accepted or acceptable to the community. I voted "Keep" despite the fact that I am not certain that I favour the idea, because I prefer that it be a discussion, not a vote. *fD creates votes, it forces you to pick a side...
Hmm, with the *fD's being as overloaded as they are, I don't like the idea of abusing them more this way. *fD is supposed to be about deleting articles, not attraction attention to debates that need to be had. And deleting the article wouldn't exactly stop the debate being had again next week anyway...whereas having the debate and gaining consensus that it was a bad idea would.
Steve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Now...
is to a deletion debate on a page for bounties (cash etc) for bits of work on the project. I believe such a page would be a good thing. Arguments in > favour follow:
Yeck, why do people use AfD in this way? Debate the point, refute it, gain consensus and drive it into the ground, by all means. But don't simply call the mayor and get it bulldozed on a technicality...
I think people use deletion (Misc-fD, in fact) this way to force a decisive debate. I agree in general that it's not good, but an opponent might equally argue that the act of creating the page was bulldozing ahead without consensus (it's been debated before to a limited extent on the "foundation bounty board" page without consensus).
-- Matt
You're absolutely right. People on a tight budget like me would be very much interested in financial compensation for certain jobs. As long as it results in articles following policy, I don't see the problem.
Mgm
On 4/18/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Now...
is to a deletion debate on a page for bounties (cash etc) for bits of work on the project. I believe such a page would be a good thing. Arguments in favour follow:
It's worked fine, as far as I can tell, on the German edition since last July, and in a number of free software/open source communities. Some people have argued that selfless altruism is the ideal goal for Wikipedian motives. I disagree. Altruism is good if you can get it, but most people work on Wikipedia for a variety of additional reasons: for fun, to practice a language, to gain a reputation, to socialise, to document their POV, and so on. We don't need to worry so much about motives, but rather whether people follow policy in their editing. We should encourage reward systems where we can do so without compromising our goals.
Others have argued that the lure of cash would cause people to pay others to insert their bias and such. Of course, this is a risk with or without a bounty board, but at least we can monitor and police this page. Moreover, Wikipedia mechanisms are quite robust against POV pushers, regardless of motivation. We deal daily with people with strong views on religion, politics, ethics etc, yet we cope well -- and as we probably all know, people get more passionate about these things than any financial pressure could induce.
Wikipedians will always be volunteers. But cash is useful for Wikipedians. For example, we now demand, and rightly, reliable sources for facts. But it's the case that acquiring reliable sources can be an expensive activity.
-- Matt [[User:Matt Crypto]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 18/04/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
You're absolutely right. People on a tight budget like me would be very much interested in financial compensation for certain jobs. As long as it results in articles following policy, I don't see the problem.
As I see it, the *only* problem is whether Wikipedia wants to gain a reputation as "having to" pay its editors, or something. We certainly can't stop people making private deals. All we can control is whether it happens in the Wikipedia namespace or not.
We already have WP:BOUNTY - I don't see a problem here.
Steve
On Apr 18, 2006, at 8:40 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
You're absolutely right. People on a tight budget like me would be very much interested in financial compensation for certain jobs. As long as it results in articles following policy, I don't see the problem.
My concern is getting Wikipedia written faster and better. If people make money along the way, more power to them. It's worked on Deutsche Wikipedia and it can work here.
If we reject this policy, incidentally, we'd also have to reject all of Larry Sanger's contributions--he was a paid editor-in-chief during his tenure.
On 18/04/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Apr 18, 2006, at 8:40 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
You're absolutely right. People on a tight budget like me would be very much interested in financial compensation for certain jobs. As long as it results in articles following policy, I don't see the problem.
My concern is getting Wikipedia written faster and better. If people make money along the way, more power to them. It's worked on Deutsche Wikipedia and it can work here.
If we reject this policy, incidentally, we'd also have to reject all of Larry Sanger's contributions--he was a paid editor-in-chief during his tenure.
I think rejecting any policy on the grounds that it may produce POV edits is flawed. Quite simply, the value of POV edits is not particularly high to anyone, unless they're being paid to maintain them. Any article will, over time, represent the POV of all its contributors, not just one. So, just as one NPOV crimefighter working on a Pokemon fan article (with apologies) will eventually see his work completely eroded, a nefarious POV pusher working on an otherwise neutral article will see his evil deeds go to waste. Wikipedia works because overall most articles have mostly more or less neutral contributors mostly contributing. (I couldn't get any more hedges into that sentence...)
Steve
On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I think rejecting any policy on the grounds that it may produce POV edits is flawed. Quite simply, the value of POV edits is not particularly high to anyone, unless they're being paid to maintain them. Any article will, over time, represent the POV of all its contributors, not just one. So, just as one NPOV crimefighter working on a Pokemon fan article (with apologies) will eventually see his work completely eroded, a nefarious POV pusher working on an otherwise neutral article will see his evil deeds go to waste. Wikipedia works because overall most articles have mostly more or less neutral contributors mostly contributing. (I couldn't get any more hedges into that sentence...)
Even if people *do* buy NPOV edits, they'll have wasted their money when those edits are deleted.
Matt R schrieb:
The following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Now...
is to a deletion debate on a page for bounties (cash etc) for bits of work on the project. I believe such a page would be a good thing. Arguments in favour follow:
What's the difference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bounty_board ? It seems like a duplicate.
It's worked fine, as far as I can tell, on the German edition since last July, and in a number of free software/open source communities.
Some notes about the efficiency of the german variant: When the page (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Auftragsarbeiten) was set up there was a lot of activity on the page, especially in the tit for tat category ("offer exchange of one featured article about an animal for one featured article about" etc). This went on for a while until the initial storm calmed down and now the page is almost unused. It seems that such pages work better as temporary special events than as durable institutions.
greetings, elian PS: the german page was on Vfd as well...
On 19/04/06, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
What's the difference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bounty_board ? It seems like a duplicate.
Bounties are paid to the Foundation. "Now Hiring" pays the editors. Also "Now Hiring" allows a wider range of tasks (taking photos, for example).
Steve
Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
The following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Now...
What's the difference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bounty_board ? It seems like a duplicate.
en:'s "Bounty Board" is strictly only for bounties which result in a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than to the editor, on completion. It's raised a little over US$100 to date.
-- Matt [[User:Matt Crypto]]