On 26 Feb 2016, at 08:39, David Cuenca Tudela
<dacuetu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying
them cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place
to stay, food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs
work, like workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
Would it be an acceptable compromise?
Regards,
Micru
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman
<dggenwp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt the Foundation
altogether. It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency.
We're supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by
letting itself be used as a medium for advertising. It at least hopes to achieve this
by
while not being evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people
freely give us more than enough for our needs, and can therefore
hope to achieve the positive good of providing objective information
on encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not
information that other organizations want people to read. We have no need to
compromise.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV
<sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
<putevod(a)mccme.ru>
wrote:
- 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.
​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
Wikipedia.
Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded
as okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles
about the institution that employs them.
But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems
because
of that, as well as the problems you highlight
(e.g. the paid editor
being
more persistent).
Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that
want articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all
the problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So
my
thinking
was that it would be better than the current
situation.
Sarah​
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
David Goodman
DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: