"because it's getting me through med school" — Anon.
Am I the only one to find that just a little discomfiting?
- d.
Well, if you have the best encyclopedia, then you've the best encyclopedia. :) Our new tagline "Helping med students thru med school".
Regards, Merc
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:27 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fundraiser quote of the day
"because it's getting me through med school" - Anon.
Am I the only one to find that just a little discomfiting?
- d.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 04/01/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"because it's getting me through med school" — Anon.
Am I the only one to find that just a little discomfiting?
To be honest, I'd rather they learn from Wikipedia than by the method my sister (currently during her first year of clinical) is learning by. Their philosophy is "See one, do one, teach one", that is, they are learning by watching someone do a procedure once when that person has only done it once before and that was after watching it done just once. I think I'm going to avoid getting sick...
Just don't get sick in July (or early August). Thats when all the new residents start, and its a good time to get yourself killed in the hospital ;-P (Does a Wikipedia doctor qualify as Grey's Anatomy's "007"?)
On Jan 4, 2008 9:28 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/01/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"because it's getting me through med school" — Anon.
Am I the only one to find that just a little discomfiting?
To be honest, I'd rather they learn from Wikipedia than by the method my sister (currently during her first year of clinical) is learning by. Their philosophy is "See one, do one, teach one", that is, they are learning by watching someone do a procedure once when that person has only done it once before and that was after watching it done just once. I think I'm going to avoid getting sick...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not really. Our medicine articles tend to be really quite decent - abnormally so. Congrats to the people who write them - though I notice the med school in question is not named :)
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:26:33 +0000 From: dgerard@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fundraiser quote of the day
"because it's getting me through med school" — Anon.
Am I the only one to find that just a little discomfiting?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Who's friends with who and co-starred in what? http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
I don't have a problem with it, as long as their internet isn't down while they're TREATING me.
Of course, if Willy has moved the "appendicitis" page that day, we could have problems...
Philippe
-------------------------------------------------- From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:26 AM To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fundraiser quote of the day
"because it's getting me through med school" — Anon.
Am I the only one to find that just a little discomfiting?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 04/01/2008, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
I don't have a problem with it, as long as their internet isn't down while they're TREATING me.
Of course, if Willy has moved the "appendicitis" page that day, we could have problems...
Perhaps we should make available a CD with stable versions of all our medical articles on. Downloading and burning a CD is much cheaper than 6 years of med school!
On 04/01/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"because it's getting me through med school" — Anon.
Am I the only one to find that just a little discomfiting?
When I first saw that, it conjured up for me a picture of a group of surgeons clustered around a wiki page panicking while on a table nearby a surgical nurse struggles with swabs to control a bleeding patient. On closer inspection, the wiki page says "YOU SUCK! LOL!"
I have never been more inspired than now to start up "selfdiagnosipedia".
People can now be empowered with the knowledge that their internet assisted diagnosis really is just as good as the real thing! This will be a glorious victory for new parents and old people everywhere!
Of course, I am fine at the moment, but I am diagnosing my friends and family with all sorts of serious ailments right now!
-aliasd
On 07/01/2008, aliasd wiki4@da-bom.com wrote:
I have never been more inspired than now to start up "selfdiagnosipedia".
People can now be empowered with the knowledge that their internet assisted diagnosis really is just as good as the real thing! This will be a glorious victory for new parents and old people everywhere!
Of course, I am fine at the moment, but I am diagnosing my friends and family with all sorts of serious ailments right now!
Wiki induced hypochondria? Fun!
Well, you can order most drugs online these days, only makes sense that you be able to find out what drugs you need, too.
On 1/7/08, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/01/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"because it's getting me through med school" — Anon.
Am I the only one to find that just a little discomfiting?
When I first saw that, it conjured up for me a picture of a group of surgeons clustered around a wiki page panicking while on a table nearby a surgical nurse struggles with swabs to control a bleeding patient. On closer inspection, the wiki page says "YOU SUCK! LOL!"
Hate to be the cynic yet again, but my first impression was different though equally discomforting.
Could paid editing could actually be lucrative enough to cover tuition, textbooks, lab fees, room and board, food, even the average student's vodka intake? Unlikely, but I'd hesitate to say impossible.
—C.W.
Could paid editing could actually be lucrative enough to cover tuition, textbooks, lab fees, room and board, food, even the average student's vodka intake? Unlikely, but I'd hesitate to say impossible.
You want to send someone through med school for the sole purpose of them writing Wikipedia articles afterwards? Interesting idea...
On 1/7/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You want to send someone through med school for the sole purpose of them writing Wikipedia articles afterwards? Interesting idea...
I think you misunderstood the hypothetical scenario, which is based on the premise that editing Wikipedia is more exciting than mowing lawns, flipping burgers, or selling products door-to-door (to cover any extant deficiency in financial aid). Incidentally I'm sure some would dispute this premise. Obviously one would go to med school to pursue their own dream of becoming a surgeon or a dermatologist or whatever.
—C.W.
On 07/01/2008, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/7/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You want to send someone through med school for the sole purpose of them writing Wikipedia articles afterwards? Interesting idea...
I think you misunderstood the hypothetical scenario, which is based on the premise that editing Wikipedia is more exciting than mowing lawns, flipping burgers, or selling products door-to-door (to cover any extant deficiency in financial aid). Incidentally I'm sure some would dispute this premise. Obviously one would go to med school to pursue their own dream of becoming a surgeon or a dermatologist or whatever.
Ah, you mean editing in their spare time to fund their way through med school? I think that's one serious problem with that - you don't get spare time in med school. It's very intensive.
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 16:49 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 07/01/2008, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/7/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You want to send someone through med school for the sole purpose of them writing Wikipedia articles afterwards? Interesting idea...
I think you misunderstood the hypothetical scenario, which is based on the premise that editing Wikipedia is more exciting than mowing lawns, flipping burgers, or selling products door-to-door (to cover any extant deficiency in financial aid). Incidentally I'm sure some would dispute this premise. Obviously one would go to med school to pursue their own dream of becoming a surgeon or a dermatologist or whatever.
Ah, you mean editing in their spare time to fund their way through med school? I think that's one serious problem with that - you don't get spare time in med school. It's very intensive.
However, all this might actually be a good idea. Paying students to edit Wikipedia might be a way of funding research into new knowledge and also help receive current knowledge in a form suitable for Wikipedia. Obviously, one would have to find funding for such a thing. AFAIR, the German Wikipedia received funding from the German government and a private company for a project that was used for paid contributors.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
However, all this might actually be a good idea. Paying students to edit Wikipedia might be a way of funding research into new knowledge and also help receive current knowledge in a form suitable for Wikipedia. Obviously, one would have to find funding for such a thing. AFAIR, the German Wikipedia received funding from the German government and a private company for a project that was used for paid contributors.
Yes, if you can find the funding, it would be great. We should target post-grads, rather than under-grads, though. The information added will be much more reliable.
On 07/01/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
However, all this might actually be a good idea. Paying students to edit Wikipedia might be a way of funding research into new knowledge and also help receive current knowledge in a form suitable for Wikipedia. Obviously, one would have to find funding for such a thing. AFAIR, the German Wikipedia received funding from the German government and a private company for a project that was used for paid contributors.
Yes, if you can find the funding, it would be great. We should target post-grads, rather than under-grads, though. The information added will be much more reliable.
We've had some great stuff from students set the assignment of writing for Wikipedia *and having to do so in a manner acceptable to Wikipedia*. e.g.
http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/29/wikipedia http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071030-prof-replaces-term-papers-with...
Dig this first edit. :-O
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deforestation_during_the_Roman_per...
Set them loose on the red link lists at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WIP
- d.
Who would pay? Especially with the likelihood that whatever is written won't live for very long in the same form, but will be modified (and in the mind of a grantor, can be modified by any non-expert).
On Jan 7, 2008 12:06 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
However, all this might actually be a good idea. Paying students to edit Wikipedia might be a way of funding research into new knowledge and also help receive current knowledge in a form suitable for Wikipedia. Obviously, one would have to find funding for such a thing. AFAIR, the German Wikipedia received funding from the German government and a private company for a project that was used for paid contributors.
Yes, if you can find the funding, it would be great. We should target post-grads, rather than under-grads, though. The information added will be much more reliable.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 12:19 -0500, Nathan wrote:
On Jan 7, 2008 12:06 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
However, all this might actually be a good idea. Paying students to edit Wikipedia might be a way of funding research into new knowledge and also help receive current knowledge in a form suitable for Wikipedia. Obviously, one would have to find funding for such a thing. AFAIR, the German Wikipedia received funding from the German government and a private company for a project that was used for paid contributors.
Yes, if you can find the funding, it would be great. We should target post-grads, rather than under-grads, though. The information added will be much more reliable.
Who would pay? Especially with the likelihood that whatever is written won't live for very long in the same form, but will be modified (and in the mind of a grantor, can be modified by any non-expert).
Well, first of all on the point of "non-experts": I don't believe one needs to be an expert on a field, as all statements must be sourced from somewhere that has been at least semi-verified by an "expert".Secondly, all statements that are sourced and cited live a lot longer than anything that wasen't. As to the exact way of putting something, that is unimportant. As long as all verifiable information that is notable is included, that is all that counts. And I can not see such information being removed.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On 07/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Who would pay? Especially with the likelihood that whatever is written won't live for very long in the same form, but will be modified (and in the mind of a grantor, can be modified by any non-expert).
I don't think the fact that it could be modified would be the sticking point. Anyone donating money to help Wikipedia obviously supports what Wikipedia is all about.
On 1/7/08, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Who would pay? Especially with the likelihood that whatever is written won't live for very long in the same form, but will be modified (and in the mind of a grantor, can be modified by any non-expert).
You all are missing the point, which is that I briefly considered the possibility that people editing Wikipedia on behalf of some governmental or corporate entity either as a direct employee or as a subcontracted spin-doctor, might actually be very good at it, and earn enough money to pursue a path toward a more noble profession, if medicine can even be considered such. That's all, thanks, I'll shut up now.
—C.W.
I'm sorry Charlotte, but there is simply no way to avoid having at least ten more posts arguing about it. This is WikiEn-L.
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 12:41 -0500, Nathan wrote:
I'm sorry Charlotte, but there is simply no way to avoid having at least ten more posts arguing about it. This is WikiEn-L.
Nathan, I don't think that we are arguing about it - instead, I decided to take the discussion into a different direction from what Charlotte had meant.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
Ok. This is the fundraiser quote of the day thread :-P
On Jan 7, 2008 12:47 PM, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 12:41 -0500, Nathan wrote:
I'm sorry Charlotte, but there is simply no way to avoid having at least ten more posts arguing about it. This is WikiEn-L.
Nathan, I don't think that we are arguing about it - instead, I decided to take the discussion into a different direction from what Charlotte had meant.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 11:37 -0600, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 1/7/08, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Who would pay? Especially with the likelihood that whatever is written won't live for very long in the same form, but will be modified (and in the mind of a grantor, can be modified by any non-expert).
You all are missing the point, which is that I briefly considered the possibility that people editing Wikipedia on behalf of some governmental or corporate entity either as a direct employee or as a subcontracted spin-doctor, might actually be very good at it, and earn enough money to pursue a path toward a more noble profession, if medicine can even be considered such. That's all, thanks, I'll shut up now.
—C.W.
My first interpretation of what you had written was exactly that, however as it is very unlikely I dismissed it for further discussion ;)
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 17:06 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
However, all this might actually be a good idea. Paying students to edit Wikipedia might be a way of funding research into new knowledge and also help receive current knowledge in a form suitable for Wikipedia. Obviously, one would have to find funding for such a thing. AFAIR, the German Wikipedia received funding from the German government and a private company for a project that was used for paid contributors.
Yes, if you can find the funding, it would be great. We should target post-grads, rather than under-grads, though. The information added will be much more reliable.
Not necessarily, in my opinion. I believe that anybody who has managed to get into university and has at least spend a term there knows how to research facts and source/cite them using the citation methods used on Wikipedia.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On 07/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 17:06 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
However, all this might actually be a good idea. Paying students to edit Wikipedia might be a way of funding research into new knowledge and also help receive current knowledge in a form suitable for Wikipedia. Obviously, one would have to find funding for such a thing. AFAIR, the German Wikipedia received funding from the German government and a private company for a project that was used for paid contributors.
Yes, if you can find the funding, it would be great. We should target post-grads, rather than under-grads, though. The information added will be much more reliable.
Not necessarily, in my opinion. I believe that anybody who has managed to get into university and has at least spend a term there knows how to research facts and source/cite them using the citation methods used on Wikipedia.
University entry requirements are pretty low, and you don't usually get chucked out for being useless until at least the end of the first year. In my experience, plenty of people don't even get chucked out then - per capita funding, you see...
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 17:34 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 07/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 17:06 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
However, all this might actually be a good idea. Paying students to edit Wikipedia might be a way of funding research into new knowledge and also help receive current knowledge in a form suitable for Wikipedia. Obviously, one would have to find funding for such a thing. AFAIR, the German Wikipedia received funding from the German government and a private company for a project that was used for paid contributors.
Yes, if you can find the funding, it would be great. We should target post-grads, rather than under-grads, though. The information added will be much more reliable.
Not necessarily, in my opinion. I believe that anybody who has managed to get into university and has at least spend a term there knows how to research facts and source/cite them using the citation methods used on Wikipedia.
University entry requirements are pretty low, and you don't usually get chucked out for being useless until at least the end of the first year. In my experience, plenty of people don't even get chucked out then - per capita funding, you see...
I'm not sure what country you are referring to, but from my experience getting into a decent university on a satisfactory course one should at least have some good grades and a decent character. I try not to be biased, but the American system seems to be slightly more acceptable to people with lower qualifications or less motivation.
Obviously, if this were to be planned one would need criteria having to be met (for example one can only be paid for edits on articles from ones field of study).
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
I'm not sure what country you are referring to, but from my experience getting into a decent university on a satisfactory course one should at least have some good grades and a decent character. I try not to be biased, but the American system seems to be slightly more acceptable to people with lower qualifications or less motivation.
Obviously, if this were to be planned one would need criteria having to be met (for example one can only be paid for edits on articles from ones field of study).
"decent" being the operative word there. There are many unis that I wouldn't describe as "decent". My experience is with UK unis, but I think the same applies to varying degrees wherever you go (except possibly China, from what I hear).
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:03 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I'm not sure what country you are referring to, but from my experience getting into a decent university on a satisfactory course one should at least have some good grades and a decent character. I try not to be biased, but the American system seems to be slightly more acceptable to people with lower qualifications or less motivation.
Obviously, if this were to be planned one would need criteria having to be met (for example one can only be paid for edits on articles from ones field of study).
"decent" being the operative word there. There are many unis that I wouldn't describe as "decent". My experience is with UK unis, but I think the same applies to varying degrees wherever you go (except possibly China, from what I hear).
Well, having attended Beijing Language and Culture University I can confirm that Chinese universities are intend of quite a good standard and that entry requirements are quite hight - both academically and financially. On the matter of UK universities, where I now attend [[SOAS]], I agree that quality differs.
I wonder if the Wikimedia Foundation would be interested in such an idea in the future. In my opinion this would be a fantastic idea for all parties involved.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On 07/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:03 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I'm not sure what country you are referring to, but from my experience getting into a decent university on a satisfactory course one should at least have some good grades and a decent character. I try not to be biased, but the American system seems to be slightly more acceptable to people with lower qualifications or less motivation.
Obviously, if this were to be planned one would need criteria having to be met (for example one can only be paid for edits on articles from ones field of study).
"decent" being the operative word there. There are many unis that I wouldn't describe as "decent". My experience is with UK unis, but I think the same applies to varying degrees wherever you go (except possibly China, from what I hear).
Well, having attended Beijing Language and Culture University I can confirm that Chinese universities are intend of quite a good standard and that entry requirements are quite hight - both academically and financially. On the matter of UK universities, where I now attend [[SOAS]], I agree that quality differs.
I wonder if the Wikimedia Foundation would be interested in such an idea in the future. In my opinion this would be a fantastic idea for all parties involved.
I doubt it's something the WMF would fund directly (at least, not until their financial situation is more stable), we need an outside backer if the idea is going to go anywhere.
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:36 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 07/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:03 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I'm not sure what country you are referring to, but from my experience getting into a decent university on a satisfactory course one should at least have some good grades and a decent character. I try not to be biased, but the American system seems to be slightly more acceptable to people with lower qualifications or less motivation.
Obviously, if this were to be planned one would need criteria having to be met (for example one can only be paid for edits on articles from ones field of study).
"decent" being the operative word there. There are many unis that I wouldn't describe as "decent". My experience is with UK unis, but I think the same applies to varying degrees wherever you go (except possibly China, from what I hear).
Well, having attended Beijing Language and Culture University I can confirm that Chinese universities are intend of quite a good standard and that entry requirements are quite hight - both academically and financially. On the matter of UK universities, where I now attend [[SOAS]], I agree that quality differs.
I wonder if the Wikimedia Foundation would be interested in such an idea in the future. In my opinion this would be a fantastic idea for all parties involved.
I doubt it's something the WMF would fund directly (at least, not until their financial situation is more stable), we need an outside backer if the idea is going to go anywhere.
I'm not suggesting that the WMF would back this directly, as I fully understand that they need money currently for things with a much larger priority. However, having the support of the WMF would be fantastic for getting such outside backing. However, I fear that the WMF might see this as money going somewhere else that could have been going to them.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
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).
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.
Nathan
On Jan 7, 2008 1:52 PM, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:36 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 07/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:03 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I'm not sure what country you are referring to, but from my experience getting into a decent university on a satisfactory course one should at least have some good grades and a decent character. I try not to be biased, but the American system seems to be slightly more acceptable to people with lower qualifications or less motivation.
Obviously, if this were to be planned one would need criteria having to be met (for example one can only be paid for edits on articles from ones field of study).
"decent" being the operative word there. There are many unis that I wouldn't describe as "decent". My experience is with UK unis, but I think the same applies to varying degrees wherever you go (except possibly China, from what I hear).
Well, having attended Beijing Language and Culture University I can confirm that Chinese universities are intend of quite a good standard and that entry requirements are quite hight - both academically and financially. On the matter of UK universities, where I now attend [[SOAS]], I agree that quality differs.
I wonder if the Wikimedia Foundation would be interested in such an idea in the future. In my opinion this would be a fantastic idea for all parties involved.
I doubt it's something the WMF would fund directly (at least, not until their financial situation is more stable), we need an outside backer if the idea is going to go anywhere.
I'm not suggesting that the WMF would back this directly, as I fully understand that they need money currently for things with a much larger priority. However, having the support of the WMF would be fantastic for getting such outside backing. However, I fear that the WMF might see this as money going somewhere else that could have been going to them.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 07/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@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.
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 19:28 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 07/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@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.
Nathan, you raised some very important points. I will try and answer them as exact as possible in the early stages of my idea:
Why pay people to contribute? Because it guarantees decent work be done by somebody and offers an incentive. It also supports students to obtain the degrees they are pursuing and therefor helps society in general.
What contents gets added? This depends on many factors. The way I imagine it would be as follows: a student of Economics works on Economics related articles, a student of Philosophy on Philosophy and so on. All other contributions will not be paid for, however I believe they will still be made by the editors in question.
Why the WMF would or even should be interested? Because it will benefit Wikipedia and that is one of the main objectives of the WMF.
Who would sponsor such editors? This is the tricky one. I think the concept of paying editors like it is a job would not work very well, why would it? I think the best idea is to reimburse them for their time spent on working on related articles. I also believe that one of the main objectives would be to gain the support of other charities. For example: The (I will make the names up, any existing names are coincidence) "Society for Chinese History in the US" has an interest in promoting Chinese History, so they could be approached for a donation of say $100 that pays some students of Chinese (History) to extend a certain amount of articles to a point of acceptability. What is the point of acceptability? At least GA quality I would say or a large amount of good start class etc.
The main criteria to be eligble for payment would be that all edits are conform to existing policy and are of the highest quality in the sense that they are well sourced and cited. Language abilities should at least be good (wording can always be changed by other editors).
Does this explain a little bit more of what I am imagining could be the future?
Regards,
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
Paying guarantees work will be done, not that the work will be good. Paying per article in fact invites just the opposite. I would be extremely dubious of any articles introduced in this manner, no matter what the university, just as i would of any COI. Being paid to edit is the ultimate in COI. I would advise WMF to stay as far a way from this as possible.
On Jan 7, 2008 2:56 PM, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 19:28 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 07/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@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.
Nathan, you raised some very important points. I will try and answer them as exact as possible in the early stages of my idea:
Why pay people to contribute? Because it guarantees decent work be done by somebody and offers an incentive. It also supports students to obtain the degrees they are pursuing and therefor helps society in general.
What contents gets added? This depends on many factors. The way I imagine it would be as follows: a student of Economics works on Economics related articles, a student of Philosophy on Philosophy and so on. All other contributions will not be paid for, however I believe they will still be made by the editors in question.
Why the WMF would or even should be interested? Because it will benefit Wikipedia and that is one of the main objectives of the WMF.
Who would sponsor such editors? This is the tricky one. I think the concept of paying editors like it is a job would not work very well, why would it? I think the best idea is to reimburse them for their time spent on working on related articles. I also believe that one of the main objectives would be to gain the support of other charities. For example: The (I will make the names up, any existing names are coincidence) "Society for Chinese History in the US" has an interest in promoting Chinese History, so they could be approached for a donation of say $100 that pays some students of Chinese (History) to extend a certain amount of articles to a point of acceptability. What is the point of acceptability? At least GA quality I would say or a large amount of good start class etc.
The main criteria to be eligble for payment would be that all edits are conform to existing policy and are of the highest quality in the sense that they are well sourced and cited. Language abilities should at least be good (wording can always be changed by other editors).
Does this explain a little bit more of what I am imagining could be the future?
Regards,
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I reply below the thread
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 15:05 -0500, David Goodman wrote:
Paying guarantees work will be done, not that the work will be good. Paying per article in fact invites just the opposite. I would be extremely dubious of any articles introduced in this manner, no matter what the university, just as i would of any COI. Being paid to edit is the ultimate in COI. I would advise WMF to stay as far a way from this as possible.
On Jan 7, 2008 2:56 PM, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 19:28 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 07/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@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.
Nathan, you raised some very important points. I will try and answer them as exact as possible in the early stages of my idea:
Why pay people to contribute? Because it guarantees decent work be done by somebody and offers an incentive. It also supports students to obtain the degrees they are pursuing and therefor helps society in general.
What contents gets added? This depends on many factors. The way I imagine it would be as follows: a student of Economics works on Economics related articles, a student of Philosophy on Philosophy and so on. All other contributions will not be paid for, however I believe they will still be made by the editors in question.
Why the WMF would or even should be interested? Because it will benefit Wikipedia and that is one of the main objectives of the WMF.
Who would sponsor such editors? This is the tricky one. I think the concept of paying editors like it is a job would not work very well, why would it? I think the best idea is to reimburse them for their time spent on working on related articles. I also believe that one of the main objectives would be to gain the support of other charities. For example: The (I will make the names up, any existing names are coincidence) "Society for Chinese History in the US" has an interest in promoting Chinese History, so they could be approached for a donation of say $100 that pays some students of Chinese (History) to extend a certain amount of articles to a point of acceptability. What is the point of acceptability? At least GA quality I would say or a large amount of good start class etc.
The main criteria to be eligble for payment would be that all edits are conform to existing policy and are of the highest quality in the sense that they are well sourced and cited. Language abilities should at least be good (wording can always be changed by other editors).
Does this explain a little bit more of what I am imagining could be the future?
Regards,
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
David, of course the sponsoring institution would have to be satisfied with the quality.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
Why pay people to contribute? Because it guarantees decent work be done by somebody and offers an incentive. It also supports students to obtain the degrees they are pursuing and therefor helps society in general.
It makes it quite likely, it certainly doesn't guarantee it.
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 20:25 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Why pay people to contribute? Because it guarantees decent work be done by somebody and offers an incentive. It also supports students to obtain the degrees they are pursuing and therefor helps society in general.
It makes it quite likely, it certainly doesn't guarantee it.
As I have mentioned before: Payment would not be made based upon edit count, but upon decission that the work done is of decent quality. It is a reward.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
Charlotte Webb schrieb:
Obviously one would go to med school to pursue their own dream of becoming a <!--surgeon or a--> dermatologist or whatever.
—C.W.
"Dermatologist is Greek for 'fake doctor'" -Dr. Cox
As with most topics, Wikipedia articles are quite useful to gain a quick overview, and to estimate relative importance of involved aspects and understand the basic structure of a topic which can be tedious (and awesome, literally, in areas like physiology) using several standard textbooks when you're getting started to prepare for a test.
Also, studies on preservation of basic knowledge with practising physicians suggest they (and not only students) should use a readily available online source like Wikipedia a lot more frequently. Far too many of them don't even know some of the basics like ideal blood pressure etcpp and they don't have the time to look all of this up time and again. And textbooks, especially in the field of clinical medicine, can become quickly and utterly outdated as the latest research is made available and finds its way into advanced training.
It's not like they have to rely on wikinformation(tm) from articles about e.g. World War II or Star Wars. ''That'' would be reason to worry.
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 18:23 +0100, Adrian wrote:
Charlotte Webb schrieb:
Obviously one would go to med school to pursue their own dream of becoming a <!--surgeon or a--> dermatologist or whatever.
—C.W.
"Dermatologist is Greek for 'fake doctor'" -Dr. Cox
As with most topics, Wikipedia articles are quite useful to gain a quick overview, and to estimate relative importance of involved aspects and understand the basic structure of a topic which can be tedious (and awesome, literally, in areas like physiology) using several standard textbooks when you're getting started to prepare for a test.
Also, studies on preservation of basic knowledge with practising physicians suggest they (and not only students) should use a readily available online source like Wikipedia a lot more frequently. Far too many of them don't even know some of the basics like ideal blood pressure etcpp and they don't have the time to look all of this up time and again. And textbooks, especially in the field of clinical medicine, can become quickly and utterly outdated as the latest research is made available and finds its way into advanced training.
It's not like they have to rely on wikinformation(tm) from articles about e.g. World War II or Star Wars. ''That'' would be reason to worry.
That is exactly the main use of Wikipedia for students: a starting point and use of the external links.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On Jan 5, 2008 12:26 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"because it's getting me through med school" — Anon.
Am I the only one to find that just a little discomfiting?
I finally remembered where I saw this cartoon:
http://www.explosm.net/comics/1128/