Ray Saintonge wrote
Private payments in support of private interests are less dangerous than direct subsidies from Wikimedia.
Or not.
We know they are outsiders.
How?
Direct payment can too easily suggest that the payee has the WMF stamp of approval, or somehow states the "official" POV for his selected topics.
Sorry, that's paranoid stuff. Why would the Board hypothetically spend money to undermine NPOV? Since when has the WMF had an official POV? Why would this sort of thing, which would have to appear transparently in budgets, be _worse_ than political, religious or corporate groups paying people to edit, deniably?
I'm against the concept of paid editors, but basically because support for the sites in other ways should have priority.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information