[Foundation-l] 300 Euro for excellent Articles: an experiment
Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Thu Aug 18 15:03:25 UTC 2005
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>
>Your comments below have nothing to do with what you said earlier. I
>appreciate the value of translation, and actually worked as a professional
>translator for twenty years. This is not about translation. You suggested companies
>pay the Foundation or (individuals) to translate articles about them. Once
>money changes hands over content, the question becomes whether the Foundation or
>the translator has a responsibility to ensure that the content is
>satisfactory to that client. The exchange of money can be viewed as a contractual
>agreement of sorts. Assuming we do that, it is the corporation that determines the
>content of the article, not the community. It is clear that this is a
>violation of NPOV.
>
>In general, I am also opposed to people paying for articles. I think that
>this will be the first step toward a breakdown of a volunteer community. Imagine
> this scenario. If Danny is getting paid to translate or write articles,
>maybe I should too. Maybe I wont even write an article until I get paid for it.
>
>In just four and a half years, we have been highly successful because we are
>a volunteer organization devoted to creating free content--not a
>translator's bulletin board. What you and Gerard are proposing will harm the volunteer
>spirit of the project by creating unnecessary hierarchies within it of paid
>writers and volunteers. This is completely against everything we have succeeded
>in doing so far.
>
>Danny
>
>
Hoi,
Your response proves that we do not talk about the same thing. Sabine
does not suggest that the WMF should pay for content. What she already
does is offer payment for particular articles that she is interested in.
Articles where it is important for her to have translations in languages
like Russian or Japanese or ... What she proposes is that outside of the
WMF she offers a service where this is organised; people or
organisations offer money or services for the translations of specific
articles.
If you are interested in translating an article for money than you can
but it will be only for the articles that a premium is offered for. In
this proposal there is no involvement of the WMF, it is something that
helps Sabine in her activities and it helps Free content as well. The
quality of the articles have to be good in order for it to make sense to
pay for but as far as anyone else is concerned this is something between
the person who wants a translation and a person who is able to provide a
translation.
Your assertion that this is about the WMF paying for content is wrong.
However, your assertion that we are doing a great job for all people on
this planet is very debatable. We have little or no content for many
languages and I would think it a fallacy to reject paying for content in
languages like Bambara or Ossetian out of hand just because we can get
content in languages like English, Dutch or Plattdüütsch. The defenition
of Wikipedia is: *"Wikipedia* is a project to build free encyclopedias
in all languages of the world based on a neutral point of view." On
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia it does not say that we will
always be a volunteer organisation. If anything, we are slowly getting
more professionals in to make sure that what we do will grow and
prosper. The discussion on paying for content has been going on for
quite some time. Many people are really happy that there is some
movement in getting content in languages like Bambara or Ossetian. In my
opinion, it makes more sense to spend money on Bambara than on
Plattdüütsch. Research on languages like Bambara are comparatively so
underfunded.
It is great to see what we have achieved but there is so much more that
we need to achieve to make our goals happen. It will take time effort
and also money before we can truly say that we provide Free information
to all the people of this world.
Thanks,
GerardM
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list