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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>