Le 30/11/2017 à 10:19, Amir E. Aharoni a écrit :
It's not the central point of this discussion, but
I have to chime in
here
a bit: It's OK for me, and I guess that it's OK for you given that you're
writing this, and I guess that it's OK for a lot of current Wikipedia
editors because otherwise they probably wouldn't be editing. But it's not
necessary OK for people who could be writing on Wikipedia and aren't
writing.
I specifically heard from several people who live in different countries
and speak different languages that the absence of easily visilbe
attribution is one reason why they don't want to contribute. Should this be
changed?—that's a big and completely separate question. I just wanted to
point out that it's not something that should be easily dismissed with
"it's OK". It's not OK for everybody.
Thank you, that's
indeed a very interesting feedback, and probably not
the least significant bias I showed in my message.
Is it a really local phenomena, that might be significantly matched with
a lake of contributions in some linguistic versions? I mean, would it
worth an A/B testing on some wiki to measure if showing credits
somewhere on the article page itself does have an impact on number of
contributors? (should this question be developed, forking the thread
would be relevant)
I will also note, like some other people in this
thread, that it's far
better to discuss ideas than discuss people. In particular, there are no
reasons to assume any bad intentions on Denny's part; Denny's involvement
with Wikimedia began long before his move to Google, and his current Google
affiliation is not a problem either.
I don't think that you need bad intentions
for being in a position of
conflict of interest. You might even defend that such a position make a
person a victim of some social structure.
Maybe it's also not clear from my messages, but I'm not against Google
or any company which is in hegemonic position, which is not a problem
per se, at least this is my opinion. The problem is of course, the
easiness of badly abusing an hegemonic position, even in total good faith.
In recent weeks someone posted on wikimedia-l an adage like "power
corrupt but absolute power looks rather cool". I don't agree with that.
In the best situations, absolute power miraculously ends up in quite
dissolution, but must likely it's a good point of departure for a whole
society mess. But maybe it just me being ignorant of some enlightened
absolute monarch/dictator/party which led to a wonderful flourishing
society full of mutual human respect and sane sustainable economic
development, references are welcome. :)