How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding pilots to have professional researchers do https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en and a few other main languages?
It would be great to measure the quality of results of different payment incentive models and rates, but this is not something that the Foundation could do without some risk of breaching the DMCA safe harbor provisions, as far as I can see. Even if I am technically wrong about that, the appearances would be that it's obvious exertion of what would be positive editorial control, which would still mean a greater likelihood of lawsuits by disgruntled BLP and corporate subjects who can't win in court but can waste everyone's money.
But I would rather have multiple measurements administered by different parties anyway, because there are likely to be large uncontrollable sources of noise.
Hoi, I categorically oppose paying people for content. Enabling them to create content is different. Citations is content and its quality is relevant but only that. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 April 2016 at 18:54, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding pilots to have professional researchers do https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en and a few other main languages?
It would be great to measure the quality of results of different payment incentive models and rates, but this is not something that the Foundation could do without some risk of breaching the DMCA safe harbor provisions, as far as I can see. Even if I am technically wrong about that, the appearances would be that it's obvious exertion of what would be positive editorial control, which would still mean a greater likelihood of lawsuits by disgruntled BLP and corporate subjects who can't win in court but can waste everyone's money.
But I would rather have multiple measurements administered by different parties anyway, because there are likely to be large uncontrollable sources of noise. _______________________________________________ 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
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
...
I categorically oppose paying people for content. Enabling them to create content is different. Citations is content and its quality is relevant but only that.
Why categorically? We already pay hundreds of people for work in support of the projects, including reader-facing administrative and content far more prominent than citations. We encourage Wikipedian in Residence programs where third parties pay for all kinds of content development. The PR editing guidelines explicitly recognize that paid content happens anyway, we can't control it, but we can offer best practices. We support editing assigned as part of academic class requirements.
What reason is there to flatly rule out paying people to find citations before measuring the quality and cost/benefit ratio of doing so with a variety of both incentive payment models and managers?
How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding
pilots to
have professional researchers do https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en
and a few other main languages?
It would be great to measure the quality of results of different payment incentive models and rates, but this is not something that the Foundation could do without some risk of breaching the DMCA safe harbor provisions,
as
far as I can see. Even if I am technically wrong about that, the appearances would be that it's obvious exertion of what would be positive editorial control, which would still mean a greater likelihood of
lawsuits
by disgruntled BLP and corporate subjects who can't win in court but can waste everyone's money.
But I would rather have multiple measurements administered by different parties anyway, because there are likely to be large uncontrollable
sources
of noise.
I agree this is not a black and white issue.
To depend upon a volunteer workforce to chip away at big picture issues -- especially relating to citations (with the idea that they become systemized and full on integrated with Wikidata in a super user friendly way) -- is (a) impractical and (b) weakens the potential for innovation, information gathering, and quality control.
But then again I think there should be rich and deep cultural partnerships with GLAM and other institutions, even TV networks and other content creators, that are funded by grants and outreach in an effort to make Wikipedia less text heavy, less citation lite, and less curated by hobbyists who drive out experts in their fields.
I am saying this lovingly, of course, as a hobbyist here....
Agree also about how Wikimedia *does* pay many people -- and should continue to do so in service to the projects. This is the first "dirty secret" #NotReally I was truly shocked by once I started volunteering and getting more involved here.
I don't get citation hunt, find it intimidating and is not why I edit Wikipedia, but I support improving citations 100%.
- Erika
*Erika Herzog* Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle Secretary, Wikimedia NYC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:02 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
...
I categorically oppose paying people for content. Enabling them to create content is different. Citations is content and its quality is relevant
but
only that.
Why categorically? We already pay hundreds of people for work in support of the projects, including reader-facing administrative and content far more prominent than citations. We encourage Wikipedian in Residence programs where third parties pay for all kinds of content development. The PR editing guidelines explicitly recognize that paid content happens anyway, we can't control it, but we can offer best practices. We support editing assigned as part of academic class requirements.
What reason is there to flatly rule out paying people to find citations before measuring the quality and cost/benefit ratio of doing so with a variety of both incentive payment models and managers?
How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding
pilots to
have professional researchers do
https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en
and a few other main languages?
It would be great to measure the quality of results of different
payment
incentive models and rates, but this is not something that the
Foundation
could do without some risk of breaching the DMCA safe harbor
provisions,
as
far as I can see. Even if I am technically wrong about that, the appearances would be that it's obvious exertion of what would be
positive
editorial control, which would still mean a greater likelihood of
lawsuits
by disgruntled BLP and corporate subjects who can't win in court but
can
waste everyone's money.
But I would rather have multiple measurements administered by different parties anyway, because there are likely to be large uncontrollable
sources
of noise.
Hoi, Once we, as in the WMF, start paying for content there is no reasonable argument to pay specific work and not pay for other specific work. Why should we pay for additional content in English and not pay for content in other languages?
Research is done that may lead to the use of Wikidata for citations. We have a project called Wikiquote, why not invest attention into Wikiquote. Really all the basic reasons why work on citations deserves additional funding is lacking. It does not explain what it will bring us anything that we cannot get in another way.
As long as there is no obvious benefit, it would destroy what we are and how we do things for no obvious benefit. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 April 2016 at 16:02, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
...
I categorically oppose paying people for content. Enabling them to create content is different. Citations is content and its quality is relevant
but
only that.
Why categorically? We already pay hundreds of people for work in support of the projects, including reader-facing administrative and content far more prominent than citations. We encourage Wikipedian in Residence programs where third parties pay for all kinds of content development. The PR editing guidelines explicitly recognize that paid content happens anyway, we can't control it, but we can offer best practices. We support editing assigned as part of academic class requirements.
What reason is there to flatly rule out paying people to find citations before measuring the quality and cost/benefit ratio of doing so with a variety of both incentive payment models and managers?
How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding
pilots to
have professional researchers do
https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en
and a few other main languages?
It would be great to measure the quality of results of different
payment
incentive models and rates, but this is not something that the
Foundation
could do without some risk of breaching the DMCA safe harbor
provisions,
as
far as I can see. Even if I am technically wrong about that, the appearances would be that it's obvious exertion of what would be
positive
editorial control, which would still mean a greater likelihood of
lawsuits
by disgruntled BLP and corporate subjects who can't win in court but
can
waste everyone's money.
But I would rather have multiple measurements administered by different parties anyway, because there are likely to be large uncontrollable
sources
of noise.
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
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:54 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding pilots to have professional researchers do https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en and a few other main languages?
​Might I suggest you approach some of these larger chapters and see what they think? Popular opinion on the general mailing list isn't much currency when you're talking about use of actual currency for chapters.
DMCA + BLP = FUD?
Pardon my brevity, for my time is best spent adding uncited claims via sockpuppets so that I can get some money once the hunt begins.
Il 22/04/2016 18:54, James Salsman ha scritto:
How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding pilots to have professional researchers dohttps://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en and a few other main languages?
It would be great to measure the quality of results of different payment incentive models and rates, but this is not something that the Foundation could do without some risk of breaching the DMCA safe harbor provisions, as far as I can see. Even if I am technically wrong about that, the appearances would be that it's obvious exertion of what would be positive editorial control, which would still mean a greater likelihood of lawsuits by disgruntled BLP and corporate subjects who can't win in court but can waste everyone's money.
But I would rather have multiple measurements administered by different parties anyway, because there are likely to be large uncontrollable sources of noise. _______________________________________________ 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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org