[Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace

[Lars Aronsson]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

> There are two entirely separate issues here.

I agree, but the difference is apparently not about being paid, 
but about the contents of the resulting articles.

We all agree that articles should be encyclopedic, NPOV and cover 
relevant topics.  Contributors who cannot learn to comply with 
this can ultimately be blocked and banned, and will have their 
edits reverted.

If they market themselves as Wikipedia-based PR agents, something 
they cannot legally deliver, there are laws (in some countries, at 
least) against false marketing.  However, it seems more likely 
that they would market themselves as PR agents without even 
mentioning Wikipedia as part of the package.  This probably 
happens already.  Do we know where all the detailed articles on 
various BMW car models come from?  Why does the [[en:Saab 9-5]] 
article "require cleanup", while all BMW articles are good?
I don't want to start any witch hunt.  I'm glad that there are 
good articles about BMWs.  I don't care who wrote them.  Let's 
hope other brands can radiate the same inspiration to contributors 
of good articles.

When I edit Wikipedia, it's in my free time, when I could decide 
to work instead, so I'm already paying a price (to myself) for 
editing.  Some people cannot afford this free time, but are forced 
to have double jobs.  Northern welfare states (Canada, Sweden, 
Japan) have more people with computers, education, and free time 
available to edit Wikipedia, so these societies will be covered in 
more detail than other regions.  If I get a scholarship, I can 
spend more of my time editing Wikipedia.  Next step, if the 
tourist board of my region (or a health eduction organization) 
would pay me, I could focus on covering topics relevant to them.  
And perhaps some hotel chains (or drug companies) can add to that 
money.  Since I'm giving talks and technical consulting, I could 
also advice PR firms on how to understand and interact with 
collaborative Internet communities.

I don't see that I would step over some sharp border, were I to go 
from paying myself to receiving scholarships or corporate 
sponsoring for writing on Wikipedia. The sharp border is if I'm 
starting to write bad articles.

It is possible that we should all openly declare any money we 
receive for Wikipedia-related activities.  Are there any 
guidelines for this already?  Would that include personal wealth 
that enables us to spend time and resources on Wikipedia?  Do 
other organizations (churches, Red Cross, ...) have such ethical 
guidelines?

> But we can and should stand firm on the ethical principles.

But which are the ethical principles here?


-- 
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se