On 07/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Just to outline some other quick issues...
Paid editors backed by a Foundation initiative inserts a tiered class of editors, where we haven't had such a thing in the past (debatably).
It doesn't need to. There is no reason for paid editors to have any priority over unpaid ones. In fact, I imagine they would be considered a lower tier and would be monitored more closely that other users by the community.
Who would pay for such a thing, even as a project to support Wikipedia? The money isn't going to WMF, its going to private individuals to insert content of uncertain quality that may not last out the day, let alone forever.
Who determines what type of content gets added? Do they only work on redlinks? Some of them are fairly obscure for general curriculum students. Can they edit articles of the sponsoring institution?
Finally, why would the WMF want to endorse the idea of folks getting paid for editing? Since no monetary reward comes directly from this activity, only by skewing the content to the benefit of the sponsoring institution can an investment be recouped.
It wouldn't be an investment, it would be a charitable donation. What content they work on would be determined by the person paying, I guess, although hopefully they would listen to the community for guidance. As for the quality - it's up to the person paying to make sure the people being paid are suitably qualified, that's why I'm suggesting targeting post-grads.