[Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)
cfranklin at halonetwork.net
Sat Jan 11 13:28:24 UTC 2014
I think it's actually foolish to try and split hairs over what is
acceptable paid editing and what is unacceptable paid editing. The facts
of the matter are that paid editing is taking place right now, and it will
continue to take place regardless of whatever "bright lines" are drawn in
the sand. The only question is whether it's done in a covert manner, or a
Rather than arguing over the irrelevant question of whether it is desirable
to have paid editing or not, we need instead to be talking about how we are
going to handle it. To my view, that should be requiring that anyone
editing for money be upfront about their intentions and their edits, and
letting the community scrutinise those edits and deal with them just like
they'd deal with them if they came from any other editor.
On 11 January 2014 06:35, Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hello Peter,
> I see the following two possibilities:
> Either the paid editing brings a higher quality and thus by that quality
> imposes itself as an authority and thus discourage further "unqualified"
> Or the paid editing does not bring a higher quality, then an unpaid
> volunteer editor will with right feel fooled and ask: Why does that person
> get paid and I not, it is obvious that my work is less valued and thus I
> will quit.
> In both cases I come back to my conclusion, and that is paid editing
> changes the collaboratory nature of our projects.
> Am 10.01.2014 16:23, schrieb Peter Gervai:
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Wikipedia articles. So they pay 10.000 Dollar to Bryce DeWitt (I know,
>>> he is
>>> dead, I just don't want to name any living people) to write about field
>>> theory, or John Wheeler to write about general relativity, and so on and
>>> on. I wonder if this happens, would there still be anyone who dares to
>>> change or write articles on topics about theoretical physics? If this
>> I understand your intentions but the example was faulty, as you mix up
>> paid editing with authority or celebrity status.
>> If Albert Einstein wrote an article about relativity (not paid by
>> anyone but because he really likes to share his knowledge) nobody
>> really would dare to chime in.
>> However John Doe, Jr., however he's paid isn't special and people will
>> trim his advocacy way more than a normal one.
>> In fact authority is not equal to article protection and humble
>> silence: we had pleny of cases where notable academics went away in
>> flaming anger because a "nobody" questioned their authority and
>> requested, for example, external sources or proofs.
>> I believe "paid advocacy" vs. "paid article writing" destinction is
>> valid and important; as well as the general "article writing" vs.
>> "advocacy" distinction, which may not be black and white but it's
>> definitely a separate hue or brightness. :-)
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
More information about the Wikimedia-l