[Foundation-l] Paid editing comes of age

[Kim Bruning]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:25:12AM +0000, FT2 wrote:
> I drafted this. It still seems the best approach in terms of keeping good
> editing and reducing problematic editing:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/Commercial_and_paid_editing

Hmm, your current rules fail the Duck test.(I also apply this test to persona's or other odd phenomena on-wiki)

==The duck test==
If it waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then
it's a legitimate duck... errr... wikipedia editor, and they should be allowed to edit.

If it fails to act like a duck, then it is not a legitimate duck^Wwikipedia editor.


== duck test for editors ==

People may have many motivations to edit wikipedia. Maybe they're bored, maybe they're motivated about their hobby, or maybe someone is giving
them money. Whatever the case may be, we don't typically question people's motivation. Instead, our basic rule of thumb is
to check whether they are contributing positively to the wiki. 


== People who may be paid to edit who are unlikely to have a bias ==

If people are inserting misinformation or bias, well... they should not do that. On the other hand, -for instance-  scientists, museum curators,
or people like software developers might be asked to update wikipedia as part of their duties.

* Scientists: During literature research one finds additional sources for a wikipedia article. This should be fine.
* Museum Curator: Adding information about artifacts in the collection. This should be fine.
* Software Developer: Adding information about missign tools, or correcting or updating information on languages, API's, Open Source, IT related subjects.
etc...

All these people get paid to do their job, and it should be ok for them to update wikipedia as part of that job.


== Open Source coders get paid too! ==

Open source programmers often get paid to write open _source_: if someone is willing to pay people to create open _content_ and/or maintain the wiki
as per consensus, who am I to stop them? 

In fact, it would be good to have a number of people who are available to work on the wiki for 40 hours a week, as per the "Red Cross
model" (Volunteers can refuse to do the dirty work, but paid editors have to take on the less pleasant tasks too)

I think Jimmy Wales was the first to come up with this model, it'd be interesting to hear some comments from him!


== Getting paid means more time can be spent on wikipedia ==

This can only be a good thing, imo. ;-)

There are a number of charities or indeed even companies that might want to do things like upload, document, and/or classify: 
* artwork or historical artifacts (GLAM, and service companies with GLAM customers)
* information about proteins (bioinformatics; universities, genetics companies, pharmaceuticals) 
* list or update information about diseases and medicines (pharmaceuticals)
* too many to list...

Also, sometimes there's the rare company (or manager) who already understands the value of sharing. (Seriously!) (Awwww). We need to encourage more
of these! :-)

== Here's where FT2's proposal can do better ==

1. Familiarisation.  Heck no. If one isn't a respected editor and can't even get an admin flag (which is free), why should we give them actual
money? ;-). So no, one shouldn't merely familiarise oneself. Instead one should already be working properly and ethically within the system.

2. Disclosure breaks the duck test. It should be obvious without any disclosure that one is editing correctly. Further information is superfluous.

3. Transparency. Why different rules for paid users? No. The same account rules apply! If this is merely a simplification for someone not yet familiar
with wikipedia, see 1.

4. Good Conduct:  We have always sought the same standard for everyone. I don't feel like creating upper *or* lower classes.

5. Respect for usual content standards. Another rules reminder: once again, we should set the same standard for paid editors as for everyone else.
(see 3)


sincerely,
	Kim Bruning




-- 
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72