On 11/26/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Paying people to write articles would be a whole new ballgame, and probably very un-wiki.. There would be no more effective way of creating a class of vested interests with certain visions of how they want the project to look. We all want better coverage, but at what cost?
Don't be so foolish to deny that there are already people being paid to edit...
The question in my mind is: Will more people be paid to advance the public good in cooperation with the larger community of contributors, or will more people be paid to advance private interests in opposition and through subverison of the communities interests.
Done right, I think such an adventure could do a lot to strengthen our community and leave us better prepared to cope with the results of people paid to edit for less noble goals.
At least were we to embark on that particular journey we would do with sensitivity and understanding of the risks. In no way should any such measure be itself used as a mechanism for control. The purpose of paid writers would be .. to write. And any such arrangement should be structured to avoid the creation of such interests. For example, it would be reasonable that you get paid just as equally if the community goes and removes your work.
You didn't elaborate much on your position, but I don't buy yet your claim of vested interests. Who cares more about controlling Wikipedia? Some nationalist who spends his every free moment working without pay to shape Wikipedias coverage, or some working person punching a time clock and writing a bunch of material selected by someone else?