[Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Sun Mar 31 06:46:40 UTC 2013

I see several issues/concerns re sponsoring pages.

Firstly it is a form of advertising, even if we don't name the sponsor on
the page (and there will be pressure to do so) then we will have headlines
along the lines of car maker x launches new "peregrine" car - sponsors
Wikipedia page on Peregine Falcon. A large enough part of the community
don't want to accept advertising, such a large part that any advertising
however disguised as "sponsorship" is going to be more trouble than its
worth.

Secondly there is the argument that sponsorship could help by funding the
buying of sources. We already have microgrants available to help here, why
do we also need sponsorship?

Thirdly there is the vexed issue of paid editing, here the important thing
is to avoid COI. At Wikimania in Gdansk Google's charity arm presented a
relatively uncontentious program they had run to translate medical articles
from English into various South Asian languages.

Fourthly you can expect news stories along the lines of "travel company Y
stops sponsoring Wikipedia articles on resorts X and Z, starts sponsoring
articles on resorts A and B  as it moves out of Country Q and expands offer
in Country C".

My concern if you approach these via sponsorship is that you then have to
have a whole new bureaucracy around who is an acceptable sponsor, and
whoever seeks to control that has an impossible task as the sponsors may
not disclose their plans in advance (hypothetical example, a computer game
manufacturer known for science fiction themed games sponsors some unrelated
articles re Roman history and the Magonid dynasty, they then get a lot of
free publicity as the games press correctly speculates that they are going
to launch a "swords and sandals" type game based on the Punic Wars.

So in my opinion best to not allow sponsorship of articles.

WSC

----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:04:35 -0700
> From: Mono <monomium at gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAD6tHrU9DQS4bykOFq6gniwEC3d2UZN1Bj1b2KCOm+MvvsRwFg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> How so?
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 2013 12:55 AM, "Mono" <monomium at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, but it might be nice if we could let people pay trusted editors to
> > > improve articles (without a COI and with a NPOV) that normally wouldn't
> > get
> > > attention.
> >
> > Would that be nice? I think that would be very harmful...
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:08:45 +0100
> From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"
> Message-ID:
>         <CALTQccfVk7ABPZmeAC5K23XFa_kmO==
> DH1H5o1iJfu4++YtNcg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <monomium at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > How so?
>
> It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
> written encyclopedia.
>
> You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid editors.
> There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The whole
> concept would be extremely divisive.
>
>
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:29:33 +0000
> From: Thomas Morton <morton.thomas at googlemail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"
> Message-ID:
>         <CAKO2H7_PR2CKzF=
> ZvAy7_fSLhuhz-d19Q8kUYfX3P6sC0HdKCw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> It's a weird dichotomy.
>
> I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic
> area. I could easily have spent several grand.
>
> Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture
>
> But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge
> benefit.
>
> And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write
> these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering this
> entire field in GAs in a year.
>
> Without that it will take me a good five years
>
> I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an
> awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our
> ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem.
>
> Tom
>
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <monomium at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
> > written encyclopedia.
> >
> > You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid
> editors.
> > There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The
> whole
> > concept would be extremely divisive.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:22 +0200
> From: Strainu <strainu10 at gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"
> Message-ID:
>         <CAC9meRLKPB5iX6MFqU-ZGUQQZwCGMDT=
> AUoKaLzGWLgAZOqPnw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Guys, I think you're reading more into it than it is. When you're adopting
> an animal you don't  get to decide what and how much it gets to eat.
> Similarly adopting a wiki page wouldn't mean you pay for having a say on
> the content. At the bottom end of the reward scale you could get a badge
> you could put on YOUR website, without having your name on Wikipedia at
> all.
>
> I'm not necessarely in favour of this idea but i wanted to see if it's been
> discussed before. I guess that if it has, people havebeen confusing this
> idea with paid editing.
>
>
>