I loved the healthcare idea, sounded like such a positive thing. Until I thought about implementation details. Inevitably, there would have to be some connection to how active the editor was, otherwise we would have to get healthcare for millions of users. So then, even worse, if someone fell under the active threshold, I assume health care would be taken away... So then we'd probably have to deal with awful situations like "Wikipedia cuts health benefits for editor unable to edit due to health problems".
I don't like poking my head into these dark hypotheticals, but I wanted to share that the situation is more complicated than at least I thought.
On Friday, February 26, 2016, Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
Le 27/02/16 00:37, SarahSV a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't need to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't; the WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting involved in paid editing.
Hi Pete,
I didn't intend to start a detailed discussion about paid editing in this thread. I mentioned it only as one of the ways in which the Foundation could help unpaid editors.
To address a few issues: the point of suggesting the Foundation as a neutral broker is to remove the paid editor's COI. The editor would have no relationship with the people wanting the article, and would not be chosen by them. The brief from the Foundation would be to produce a well-written, reasonably comprehensive, neutral article about X, based on the best sources available. (Someone referred to this as advertising. It would be exactly the opposite.)
It needn't be the Foundation that organizes this. A third party might work, but the danger of a private company doing it is that they would rely on it for profit, and therefore would be sensitive to pressure from companies. The idea of the Foundation as broker is that it would always place the core policies above the desires of the client. Foundation involvement struck me as the only way for an editor to be paid for an article without having a COI.
I believe someone else suggested in this thread that it could be run the way the Education Program is, as a related but separate body. That would be something you would be perfectly placed to lead, Pete, given your experience as consultant, editor, and former Foundation employee.
Sarah _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.
Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the editorial process, which allows to claim WMF is only hosting the content. If WMF is somewhat involved in an editorial process which results in paying the authors, then WMF might lose the "host" status.
Flo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe