Hi Yaroslav,
I'm not aware of such wide consensus against paid editing in general.
Wikimedians in Residence, for example, often seem to be paid contributors,
and I can't recall the last time that I heard criticism of the concept of
Wikimedians in Residence. However, you may know more about the consensus on
diverse projects than I do, and I would be interested in reading a
representative sample of links to policies and discussions about this topic
on various projects.
Personally I am against undisclosed paid editing, and I would like to see
WMF do much more to detect, penalize, and deter undisclosed paid editing.
But there are also people and organizations such as well-intentioned WiRs
and their sponsoring institutions who are willing to contribute usefully to
the projects with paid time. I think that paid benevolent contributions to
the projects should be encouraged, for example from organizations like the
American Psychological Association and Stanford University.
I think that the professionalization of Wikimedia is likely to continue
over time. The learning curve is steep for many on-wiki tasks, and we have
a limited supply of knowledgeable volunteers who cannot possibly fulfill
all of our readers' wishes and the needs for behind the scenes support
(such as responses to OTRS tickets, conflict of interest investigations,
translations, and personalized help for new contributors) with the limited
supply of time from knowledgeable volunteers. If results from increased
professionalization are good and there aren't problems with conflict of
interest or noteworthy conflicts between populations of volunteers and
well-intentioned professionals, then I'm okay with this trend and in some
ways I would encourage it because the projects benefit from having more
knowledgeable and well-intentioned participants.
Pine
(
)
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 4:28 PM Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Whatever the reasoning is, I think we should accept
that at the moment paid
editing is universally regarded very negatively in virtually all projects.
Non-monetary prizes for competitions may or may not be ok, everything else
is most likely not considered to be ok even if does not explicitly
contradict to any policies.
Cheers
Yaroslav
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 5:07 PM John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking about actually bounties, like in
bug bounties from
larger software vendors. We have some "bugs", like spellchecking,
which is pretty easy to quantify, and that can be done as part of
bounties with cash. Yes, the ugly word, paid editing! OMG!
But quite frankly, why should we not? ¢1 per fixed single word typo
that leads to one-less spelling error? Perhaps even $1 per
spellchecked page? Delayed one week to see if anyone reverts the
edits?
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 4:17 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
<galder158(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
In the Basque wikipedia we are doing monthly contests on different
topics, and
some of them are focused on quality (i.e. adding references
and
images). There are some prices every month,
usually books or thing
related
to technology. And people usually like to
participate for the fun, and
for
the prize.
________________________________
From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf
of
Benjamin Lees <emufarmers(a)gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:14 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…
>
> It's interesting that you chose spellchecking as your example. On the
> English Wikipedia, I tend to see that as an activity that some people
> actually do find fun (or relaxing). Plus, spelling errors (or
perceived
> spelling errors[1]) are something that
unregistered users really like
> fixing. But maybe that varies significantly across language editions.
>
> In any event, spelling errors are probably the case where eventualism
is
> most appropriate. It is rare that someone
will be misinformed because
of
spelling
mistakes, and they serve a useful signaling function in making
it
clear that a given piece of content has probably
not undergone peer
review. And rather than driving people away, they tend to draw them
in—Cunningham's law[2] never fails.
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ENGVAR
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:55 PM John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > Both in Wikipedia and other parts of the Wikimedia-universe there are
> > a lot of jobs that should be done, but are not so popular. Because
> > they are not done, people get tired and backs away from whatever they
> > are doing.
> >
> > I could give several examples, but lets say spellchecking. It is not
> > fun doing spellchecking, even if you are spellchecking something
> > written by a professor. Instead of doing spellchecking you do
> > something else, like poking around in some code, or write about
> > Pokemon. While you do so the professor gets a bit annoyed over the
not
> > so perfect article, and starts to
wonder what happen to the crowd in
> > crowdsourcing.
> >
> > Somewhere along the way the it became so bad to talk about anything
> > except the pure wikipedian sitting on top of his pillar with a book
> > and a computer, writing articles in solitude, that we completely
> > missed the opportunities to get a much larger momentum.
> >
> > The Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia has over a half a million articles.
> > About 10 % lack sources. Nearly all of them has spelling errors. It
is
> > nothing unusual about this.
> >
> > Could we use bounties to get some momentum?
> >
> > John Erling Blad
> > /jeblad
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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>