charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:

Ray Saintonge wrote

...

Private payments in support of private interests are less dangerous than direct subsidies from Wikimedia.

Or not.

We know to hold them to the same standards as any unpaid writer. The average editor may be more reticent to question an officially paid writer.

...

We know they are outsiders.

How?

By the simple expedient of knowing that we don't pay them.

...

Direct payment can too easily suggest that the payee has the WMF stamp of approval, or somehow states the "official" POV for his selected topics.

Sorry, that's paranoid stuff. Why would the Board hypothetically spend money to undermine NPOV? Since when has the WMF had an official POV? Why would this sort of thing, which would have to appear transparently in budgets, be _worse_ than political, religious or corporate groups paying people to edit, deniably?

Perception is everything. Repeatedly denying that we are run by a cabal does nothing to convince those who believe it. Spending money to undermine NPOV does not imply that that is the intention. Having good articles is perfectly legitimate, and the paid writers would be instructed to write from a NPOV, but the undermining is more subtle than that.

Financial transparency? Did I miss something the announcement that financial reports were now available?

I'm against the concept of paid editors, but basically because support for the sites in other ways should have priority.

So we really agree on that fundamental question.

Ec