On 2016-02-25 03:09, SarahSV wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:20 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The Foundation could pay that number of workers, especially if it found imaginative ways to do it.
For example, it could set up a department that accepts contracts from individuals and groups who want certain articles to be written or rewritten. Instead of paying a PR company, those people would pay the Foundation. The Foundation would maintain a list of excellent editors and would offer the contract to the most appropriate, taking a percentage of the fee for itself.
I am sure this has been discussed before, but I also think this is a bad idea. Whereas I can imagine that as an exceptions some editors can be supported by the Foundation via an engagement grant, it should really stay an exceptions. The obvious reasons are:
- Different image of the movement, and, as a consequence, less donations, as Risker already pointed out. - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles. - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates with WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were paid arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give up, and I was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also had very unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose only goal was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality, efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if somebody defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the quality loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who is paid (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and have to do the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more persistent.
There should be many other reasons which I am sure have been already voiced.
Cheers Yaroslav