"Adopt a page"

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Transition team update

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Strainu

29 Mar 2013 29 Mar '13

10:36 p.m.

Show replies by thread

Thomas Dalton

29 Mar 29 Mar

10:41 p.m.

Where would their name go? If it's anywhere more prominent than the names of the volunteers that wrote the article (which anything on the article page itself would be) then it doesn't really seem fair... On Mar 29, 2013 10:37 PM, "Strainu" <strainu10(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi, I've just seen an OTRS ticket asking why isn't Wikipedia giving its pages for "adoption" (like when you adopt a page and your name ends up on its cage or something like that). I've moved the ticket to the donations queue, but I was wondering if this has ever been discussed/considered before. Thanks, Strainu _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Deryck Chan

11:10 p.m.

Because we've decided that [[WP:Ownership of articles]] is wrong, and wronger if there's financial sponsorship involved. On 29 March 2013 22:36, Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Mono

30 Mar 30 Mar

12:55 a.m.

Yes, but it might be nice if we could let people pay trusted editors to improve articles (without a COI and with a NPOV) that normally wouldn't get attention. On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan(a)wikimedia.hk>wrote;wrote:

...

Because we've decided that [[WP:Ownership of articles]] is wrong, and wronger if there's financial sponsorship involved. On 29 March 2013 22:36, Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Thomas Dalton

12:58 a.m.

On Mar 30, 2013 12:55 AM, "Mono" <monomium(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Yes, but it might be nice if we could let people pay trusted editors to improve articles (without a COI and with a NPOV) that normally wouldn't

get

...

attention.

Would that be nice? I think that would be very harmful...

Mono

1:04 a.m.

How so? On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

On Mar 30, 2013 12:55 AM, "Mono" <monomium(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, but it might be nice if we could let people pay trusted editors to improve articles (without a COI and with a NPOV) that normally wouldn't

get

attention.

Would that be nice? I think that would be very harmful... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Thomas Dalton

1:08 a.m.

On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <monomium(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

How so?

Thomas Morton

1:29 a.m.

It's a weird dichotomy. I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic area. I could easily have spent several grand. Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge benefit. And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering this entire field in GAs in a year. Without that it will take me a good five years I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem. Tom On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <monomium(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:

How so?

It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer written encyclopedia. You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid editors. There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The whole concept would be extremely divisive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Strainu

8:23 a.m.

Guys, I think you're reading more into it than it is. When you're adopting an animal you don't get to decide what and how much it gets to eat. Similarly adopting a wiki page wouldn't mean you pay for having a say on the content. At the bottom end of the reward scale you could get a badge you could put on YOUR website, without having your name on Wikipedia at all. I'm not necessarely in favour of this idea but i wanted to see if it's been discussed before. I guess that if it has, people havebeen confusing this idea with paid editing. Pe sâmbătă, 30 martie 2013, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> a scris:

...

this

...

entire field in GAs in a year. Without that it will take me a good five years I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem. Tom On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <monomium(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>>

wrote:

...

> > > > How so? > > It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer > written encyclopedia. > > You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid

editors.

...

> There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The

whole

...

concept would be extremely divisive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Craig Franklin

8:54 a.m.

It comes down to asking what the purpose of the Foundation and a project like Wikipedia is. Is it to produce a free source of knowledge, or is to promote volunteerism? If it's possible to build a better encyclopædia by encouraging paid editing or allowing for-profit entities to sponsor a particular page, then that's a possibility that we ought to make ourselves open to. Volunteerism, of course, has served the movement well and got us to where we find ourselves today, but it is not and should not be considered an end unto itself. Of course, as has been pointed out, there are potential pitfalls with this model that have been discussed many times - there are many potential COI issues, and paid editing in some areas may discourage unpaid editing in others. However, I think it would be unwise simply to dismiss those sort of possibilities out of hand. Cheers, Craig Franklin On 30 March 2013 11:29, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <monomium(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>>

wrote:

How so?

It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer written encyclopedia. You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid

editors.

There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The

whole

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Jane Darnell

9:46 a.m.

As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea, but it is hard to define and put a price on it. I would guess you would charge more to sponsor high-profile articles, the way a parks commission can advertise donor names on park benches, where the more prominently placed ones get a higher "price". That said, does the sponsorship only apply to the page in one language? And how long does the sponsorship stay with the page? Forever? That doesn't seem right. Putting the sponsor's name visibly on the page can also be confusing, because most readers will assume sponsor=writer, and this is incorrect. You could create a donor's list though that links to the pages and have the sponsor names listed there with the year of their sponsorship, with each year an update possible with the amount paid (or amount block in a scheme of bronze, silver, gold). This way high profile pages could have more sponsors. With the sponsor amounts as a guide, individual Wikipedia contributors may apply for a mini-grant to cover costs of source books, etc for future work based on past work in these pages. 2013/3/30, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>et>:

...

On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <monomium(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>>

wrote:

How so?

It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer written encyclopedia. You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid

editors.

There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The

whole

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Thomas Dalton

2:02 p.m.

On Mar 30, 2013 9:46 AM, "Jane Darnell" <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea,

It is worth remembering that we don't actually have a problem with fundraising. We can raise enormous amounts of money incredibly easily by putting banners on the fifth most visited website on the world. (I don't want to diminish the work of the foundation and chapter fundraising teams, but they only have to work really hard because we have so few people working on fundraising compared to other charities with similar budgets.) The kind of people that would sponsor a page probably donate anyway because of the banners. You might manage to increase their donation size, but that's not really important. If you want to come up with new fundraising strategies, try and think of ones that attract donors we wouldn't otherwise get. For example, legacies (donations left in people's wills) would be a great way to diversify our revenue.

Peter Southwood

7:07 p.m.

Why would anyone want to sponsor a page? What would they get out of it? Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jane Darnell" <jane023(a)gmail.com> To: <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>et>; "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

...

On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <monomium(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>>

wrote:

> > How so? It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer written encyclopedia. You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid

editors.

There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The

whole

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2240 / Virus Database: 2641/5713 - Release Date: 03/29/13

Strainu

7:37 p.m.

What do they get when they donate? What do they get when they "adopt" wildlife? Still, some people are donating and/or are adopting wildlife. Strainu 2013/3/30 Peter Southwood <peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net>

...

Why would anyone want to sponsor a page? What would they get out of it? Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jane Darnell" <jane023(a)gmail.com> To: <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>et>; "Wikimedia Mailing List" < wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page" As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea, but it is hard

to define and put a price on it. I would guess you would charge more to sponsor high-profile articles, the way a parks commission can advertise donor names on park benches, where the more prominently placed ones get a higher "price". That said, does the sponsorship only apply to the page in one language? And how long does the sponsorship stay with the page? Forever? That doesn't seem right. Putting the sponsor's name visibly on the page can also be confusing, because most readers will assume sponsor=writer, and this is incorrect. You could create a donor's list though that links to the pages and have the sponsor names listed there with the year of their sponsorship, with each year an update possible with the amount paid (or amount block in a scheme of bronze, silver, gold). This way high profile pages could have more sponsors. With the sponsor amounts as a guide, individual Wikipedia contributors may apply for a mini-grant to cover costs of source books, etc for future work based on past work in these pages. 2013/3/30, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>et>:

I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic area. I could easily have spent several grand. Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge benefit. And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering this entire field in GAs in a year. Without that it will take me a good five years I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem. Tom On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <monomium(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > How so? > > It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer > written encyclopedia. > > You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid editors. > There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The whole > concept would be extremely divisive. > ______________________________**_________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org><javascript:;> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/** mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinf… > ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists… ______________________________**_________________

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists…

______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists… ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2240 / Virus Database: 2641/5713 - Release Date: 03/29/13

Steven Walling

7:51 p.m.

On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Strainu wrote:

...

Big +1 to this comment. There's actually plenty of even more neutral ways to do this IMO, and none of them have anything to do with promoting the donor or paid editing. For example: a simple count of how many readers donated in support of this article. "This article sponsored by 70 Wikipedia readers like you. Contribute today by editing or donating." Or something like that. Anyway this discussion should be on a public wiki, ideally Meta, and we should invite Megan, Zack, and the rest of the fundraising team, not to mention the wider community.

...

Pe sâmbătă, 30 martie 2013, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com<javascript:;>> a scris:

this

wrote:

> > > > How so? > > It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer > written encyclopedia. > > You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid

editors.

> There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The

whole

concept would be extremely divisive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Mark

10:28 p.m.

There's a little of that which goes on currently (I mean above-board, not counting anything that may happen unofficially). The most common case is that a cultural organization, such as a museum, provides funds for a "Wikipedian in residence" who is brought in to do a mixture of training other people, and paying special attention to articles in a particular area of interest. I imagine this avoids trouble in most cases mainly because the goals are aligned: if we believe the cultural organization is, like us, only aiming at high-quality, accurate, NPOV coverage of their subject area, rather than any kind of self-aggrandizement or POV-pushing, then we have much in common. -Mark On 3/30/13 1:55 AM, Mono wrote:

...

Because we've decided that [[WP:Ownership of articles]] is wrong, and wronger if there's financial sponsorship involved. On 29 March 2013 22:36, Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Thomas Dalton

10:36 p.m.

On Mar 30, 2013 10:28 PM, "Mark" <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

...

There's a little of that which goes on currently (I mean above-board, not

counting anything that may happen unofficially). The most common case is that a cultural organization, such as a museum, provides funds for a "Wikipedian in residence" who is brought in to do a mixture of training other people, and paying special attention to articles in a particular area of interest. I believe Wikipedians in Residence generally avoid actually editing articles where they have a conflict of interest. They just provide support to others, that aren't conflicted, to edit them.

Peter Southwood

31 Mar 31 Mar

4:06 a.m.

How would sponsorship money for a page be spent to make the sponsorship meaningful? Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Walling" <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

...

On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Strainu wrote:

Pe sâmbătă, 30 martie 2013, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com<javascript:;>> a scris:

this

wrote:

> > > > How so? > > It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer > written encyclopedia. > > You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid

editors.

> There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The

whole

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Richard Symonds

4:45 a.m.

Replying off my phone here, so no signature or lengthy response... For Wikipedians in Residence, it varies I believe. I've seen some WiRs edit articles directly, whereas others, including WMUK's WiRs, don't edit articles about their institution at all, instead focussing on training, digitisation, or making sources easily available. On Mar 30, 2013 10:36 PM, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mar 30, 2013 10:28 PM, "Mark" <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

There's a little of that which goes on currently (I mean above-board, not

John Vandenberg

10:29 p.m.

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

fwiw, this model was discussed on the private fundraising mailing list in November 2010, with similar results IMO. -- John Vandenberg

Mathieu Stumpf

1 Apr 1 Apr

3:14 p.m.

Le 2013-03-30 09:54, Craig Franklin a écrit :

...

How do you measure risk? Because, as I percieve it, once you lost unpaid editors confidence, it will be at least as difficult to make them come back as to go from scratch again. So you better have to be absolutely sure it won't break the community before you go in such major political change. -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

Mathieu Stumpf

3:37 p.m.

Le 2013-03-30 20:51, Steven Walling a écrit :

...

There's actually plenty of even more neutral ways to do this IMO, and none of them have anything to do with promoting the donor or paid editing. For example: a simple count of how many readers donated in support of this article. "This article sponsored by 70 Wikipedia readers like you. Contribute today by editing or donating." Or something like that.

No. First, you'll also need to put how many person edited the article, how many times it was edited, and blablabla numbers. Not only could it prevent new useful edits (oh it was already so much raffined, how could I dare edit it), but it would probably encourage "let's make this article have a big edit count" useless contributions. Now I don't understand, do we have suddely so much need for paid edit? I mean, sure I would love spending my days "improving" wikipedia and other wikimedia projects, being paid for that. Give me a median salary, and I sign right now, and I'm sure I won't be alone here. But I also would be serriously affraid that it could harm the movement, which I thing is far more important than my personal pleasure of being a full time editor. -- Association Culture-Libre http://www.culture-libre.org/

4058

days inactive

4061

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

21 comments

13 participants

tags (0)

participants (13)

Craig Franklin
Deryck Chan
Jane Darnell
John Vandenberg
Mark
Mathieu Stumpf
Mono
Peter Southwood
Richard Symonds
Steven Walling
Strainu
Thomas Dalton
Thomas Morton