On 3 October 2012 12:26, Thomas Morton <
morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
> (starting a new topic as this is a little wider than the original thread,
> hope that is OK)
>
>> I think it is clear that just letting OTRS handle it doesn't
>> really work and people need more support than just an email address
>> they can send things to and get back a lecture on Wikipedia policy and
>> procedure,
>
>
> Well, respectfully I disagree - at least in part.
>
> OTRS very often works. It is because of the work of OTRS volunteers there
> aren't more news articles featuring prominent people who have had little or
> no success with Wikipedia!
often doesn't work. It often does, but there are plenty of times when
it doesn't. Don't forget the large number of cases which don't even
get as far as someone emailing OTRS because they don't know how to do
that.
Sure, that's an issue. I see where you are coming from (the Roth issue in large part stemmed from the fact that they ended up contacting the wrong place entirely!).
>>
>> and judging by the number of attempts we see at setting up
>> for-profit consultancy services for this, it would appear there is a
>> market. (I think there is probably a market of companies and
>> individuals that would be happier paying even if they could get the
>> same thing done for free, just because they feel more confident in a
>> paid service.)
>
>
> The problem with this approach is that if you enter into a monetary
> contract with someone they have more expectation of a result. I'm not
> shouting down the idea outright - but it is much harder to turn around to
> someone and say "I'm sorry, but this content can't be changed" when they are
> paying you to do that... :D
It's a issue, certainly, but as long as you are completely clear about
what it is you are doing I think it can work. The key would be to have
an initial meeting where the client explains what it is they want to
achieve and you tell them whether that is actually within Wikipedia
policy. If it isn't, then you don't take it any further. You would
only actually try and get changes made if you think there is a good
chance of success. (Whether than initial meeting would be chargable or
not, I don't know - that's a detail to be worked out.)
Yes, I suppose.
It's not so easy as that, though, speaking as an OTRS regular. One of two things can happen with regularity; a seemingly innocuous issue gets blown up by editors for no apparent reason, which leads to dramaz. Or, the initial concerns appear quite OK, but once you get onboard discussing with them it turns out they are more complex and fundamental.
I'm also concerned that the target market consists of mainly two types of client:
* One that wants to rewrite large portions of the article
* One that wants very minor issues fixed ("Please correct this logo", "Our CEO has changed", "that source refers to someone else!") etc.
Having an upfront meeting with the latter is not worth it, as this will likely take longer than resolving the issue. And the former represents the minefield I mentioned.
I also suspect that the En.Wiki community would reject anyone being able to do any substantive work on articles under such a scheme.
That sort of thing could be done as well, but I doubt many people want
to learn how to navigate the minefield that is Wikipedia just in order
to fix a few errors in an article. They just want to pay someone to
sort it out.
I am actually thinking along those lines... I'm not talking about editor recruitment type things.
But more "hi everyone, these are the Wikipedia policies, and why we have them" and then let them loose with a room full of editors who can sit and work through specific issues. With the benefit that everyone is at educated in at least the rudiments of policy.
Tom