By a foundation sponsored process, no less:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Greenspun_illustration_projec...
Quoting Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
By a foundation sponsored process, no less:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Greenspun_illustration_projec...
Since this is just for illustrated content I'm not terribly worried. The main reason as I see it that we found on paying people to edit is because a) it can lead to conflicts of interest if you are being payed to edit about the entity you are payed by and b) it ruins our Tom Sawyer approach to get so many editors. If we start paying some people to whitewash the fence, whitewashing looks a lot less fun.
On 11/2/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
b) it ruins our Tom Sawyer approach to get so many editors. If we start paying some people to whitewash the fence, whitewashing looks a lot less fun.
Isn't this more or less what I said in my (quite unpopular) response to the "[WikiEN-l] Could we use a chore wheel?" thread...
—C.W.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 11/2/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
b) it ruins our Tom Sawyer approach to get so many editors. If we start paying some people to whitewash the fence, whitewashing looks a lot less fun.
Isn't this more or less what I said in my (quite unpopular) response to the "[WikiEN-l] Could we use a chore wheel?" thread...
For what it's worth, in asking about a chore wheel I did not mean to suggest any system of payment or brownie points or one person controlling another person's work. It's all self-driven. I've tried to explain the concept better here in prep for getting the bot approved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChoreBot
The main purpose is to allow you to set yourself a reminder to work on a task that you think is necessary but not much fun. For example, Saturday I spent some time handling CAT:CSD and WP:AN/I requests.
I'd like to do that more regularly. For starters, ChoreBot will just remind me of that goal. Eventually it might do fancier things, like letting me know which of my chosen options is the most backlogged. Or graphing the amount of time spent on things. But all agency will stay where it belongs: in the hands of editors.
William
On 11/5/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
The main purpose is to allow you to set yourself a reminder to work on a task that you think is necessary but not much fun. For example, Saturday I spent some time handling CAT:CSD and WP:AN/I requests.
This concept would be helpful to the extent that it makes the traffic of each noticeboard or process or wiki-project or other "hot spot" more diverse, or less adhocratic/cliquish/whatever. Some venues could use a little shaking up (organized disruption).
—C.W.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 11/5/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
The main purpose is to allow you to set yourself a reminder to work on a task that you think is necessary but not much fun. For example, Saturday I spent some time handling CAT:CSD and WP:AN/I requests.
This concept would be helpful to the extent that it makes the traffic of each noticeboard or process or wiki-project or other "hot spot" more diverse, or less adhocratic/cliquish/whatever. Some venues could use a little shaking up (organized disruption).
That is another part of my secret plan.
Part of what inspired my desire for ChoreBot was AfD. I know I *should* go and work on it once in a while, as the whole point is to get outside views. But every time I do it seem like such an endless firehose that I rarely think, "Hey, an afternoon of AfD is the most fun thing I could do right now."
Working on it an hour a week, though, I could take. Especially if there were a way for me to see that a bunch of other people were sharing the burden.
William
On 11/5/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Working on it an hour a week, though, I could take. Especially if there were a way for me to see that a bunch of other people were sharing the burden.
What I'm saying is that it's not really about load-balancing or "sharing a burden". It's about undermining the (purely psychological) power structure of certain venues.
For a somewhat obvious example, you might covertly arrange for a flash mob, if you will, of "irregulars" to swoop in and close (sanely of course) every pending discussion at Deletion Review over the course of one hour. Yes, there would be a few raised eyebrows, even complaints, some of them from the two or three "regular" closers when they realize they've over-estimated their importance to the project, and might temporarily be left with nothing to do. Maybe they, in turn, will be flushed into pursuing other activities.
That's about as peaceful of a protest as one can hope for on Wikipedia, and it is adaptable to almost any forum.
—C.W.
On 11/5/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
This concept would be helpful to the extent that it makes the traffic of each noticeboard or process or wiki-project or other "hot spot" more diverse, or less adhocratic/cliquish/whatever. Some venues could use a little shaking up (organized disruption).
Working on it an hour a week, though, I could take. Especially if there were a way for me to see that a bunch of other people were sharing the burden.
I really like this idea. The cliques that control certain pages have an undue influence on our policies and procedures, focusing all their time on meta-issues instead of writing articles. The people writing articles should be the ones making policies, but they don't have the time or patience. A bot that went around asking random people to spend 15 minutes on any AfD nominations that caught their eye, for instance, would do much to break up the stagnation.
This sort of Chore Wheel sounds like a good idea to me... SJ
On Nov 5, 2007 9:15 AM, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 11/2/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
b) it ruins our Tom Sawyer approach to get so many editors. If we start paying some people to whitewash the fence, whitewashing looks a lot less fun.
Isn't this more or less what I said in my (quite unpopular) response to the "[WikiEN-l] Could we use a chore wheel?" thread...
For what it's worth, in asking about a chore wheel I did not mean to suggest any system of payment or brownie points or one person controlling another person's work. It's all self-driven. I've tried to explain the concept better here in prep for getting the bot approved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChoreBot
The main purpose is to allow you to set yourself a reminder to work on a task that you think is necessary but not much fun. For example, Saturday I spent some time handling CAT:CSD and WP:AN/I requests.
I'd like to do that more regularly. For starters, ChoreBot will just remind me of that goal. Eventually it might do fancier things, like letting me know which of my chosen options is the most backlogged. Or graphing the amount of time spent on things. But all agency will stay where it belongs: in the hands of editors.
William
-- William Pietri william@scissor.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Quoting Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com:
On 11/2/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
b) it ruins our Tom Sawyer approach to get so many editors. If we start paying some people to whitewash the fence, whitewashing looks a lot less fun.
Isn't this more or less what I said in my (quite unpopular) response to the "[WikiEN-l] Could we use a chore wheel?" thread...
Yes, although I'd argue that the chore wheel situation might be a bit different because even with all our propaganda some things are clearly not fun but need to get done. As long as we can convince people that most things are fun we're in good shape.
On 11/6/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this more or less what I said in my (quite unpopular) response to the "[WikiEN-l] Could we use a chore wheel?" thread...
I don't think so.
Proposition A: Paying some users devalues the experience of editing for free for other users. Proposition B: Volunteer editors prefer self-direction to being bossed around.
The common thread is perhaps "Anything that makes people think of editing Wikipedia as work is bad." But the two ideas are pretty different, mostly because in B, nothing was ever going to stop the self-directed from avoiding the chore wheel. If anything, it even works in their favour: "Ha! Look at those poor saps on the chore wheel! Hours wasted every month fixing typos! And look at me, gallivanting around writing articles about Norwegian mushrooms. What a lark I'm having!"
Seriously. The WMF paying some editors is not something we can opt out of. But a chorewheel is something we can opt out of signing up for.
Steve
On 11/2/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Since this is just for illustrated content I'm not terribly worried. The main reason as I see it that we found on paying people to edit is because a) it can lead to conflicts of interest if you are being payed to edit about the entity you are payed by
You don't have any say in whether people are paid to edit or not, since they're all anonymous. I sometimes wonder if certain users I've encountered are actually biasing Wikipedia for a living.
Or working for Britannica to destroy our culture from the inside out...
*tin foil hat*
Quoting Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com:
On 11/2/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Since this is just for illustrated content I'm not terribly worried. The main reason as I see it that we found on paying people to edit is because a) it can lead to conflicts of interest if you are being payed to edit about the entity you are payed by
You don't have any say in whether people are paid to edit or not, since they're all anonymous. I sometimes wonder if certain users I've encountered are actually biasing Wikipedia for a living.
Or working for Britannica to destroy our culture from the inside out...
*tin foil hat*
Remember to use actual tin foil. Aluminum doesn't work. In fact cheap aluminum was introduced precisely by the Illuminati so people wouldn't be able to block their orbital mind control lasers. More seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people we encounter are actively trying to bias Wikipedia; we get enough examples of corporate employees doing it quitely blatantly. However, as long as most of the editors are keeping a close eye on things it won't be too much of an issue.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Omegatron omegatron+wikienl@gmail.com:
You don't have any say in whether people are paid to edit or not, since they're all anonymous. I sometimes wonder if certain users I've encountered are actually biasing Wikipedia for a living.
Or working for Britannica to destroy our culture from the inside out...
*tin foil hat*
Remember to use actual tin foil. Aluminum doesn't work. In fact cheap aluminum was introduced precisely by the Illuminati so people wouldn't be able to block their orbital mind control lasers.
I suppose that also explains why some years back tooth-paste tubes were changed from metallic (tin/zinc?) to plastic. Maybe it was to encourage waste. Try to roll up a plastic tube and it springs back, thus ensuring that you never completely get all the toothpaste inside. :-)
Ec
On 11/6/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Remember to use actual tin foil. Aluminum doesn't work. In fact cheap aluminum was introduced precisely by the Illuminati so people wouldn't be able to block their orbital mind control lasers.
No! Don't do it!
Aluminium foil hats actually amplify certain frequencies, including some allocated to the US government for satellite communication:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/