Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…

[geni]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 16:07, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> I was thinking about actually bounties, like in bug bounties from
> larger software vendors. We have some "bugs", like spellchecking,
> which is pretty easy to quantify, and that can be done as part of
> bounties with cash. Yes, the ugly word, paid editing! OMG!
>
> But quite frankly, why should we not? ¢1 per fixed single word typo
> that leads to one-less spelling error? Perhaps even $1 per
> spellchecked page? Delayed one week to see if anyone reverts the
> edits?
>

You've just created a financial incentive to include spelling errors.

-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…

[John Erling Blad]

I believe this kind of statement ("at the moment paid editing is
universally regarded very negatively in virtually all projects") hurt
the movement more than anything else for the moment, as it blocks
progress on a lot of important fields without any real arguments to
back it up. It is the fundamental flaw behind "Terms of use/Paid
contributions amendment"[1] It is just a bunch of feelings and
hearsay. We have shot ourselves in the collective foot by blocking the
most useful tool we have.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 5:28 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> Whatever the reasoning is, I think we should accept that at the moment paid
> editing is universally regarded very negatively in virtually all projects.
> Non-monetary prizes for competitions may or may not be ok, everything else
> is most likely not considered to be ok even if does not explicitly
> contradict to any policies.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 5:07 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > I was thinking about actually bounties, like in bug bounties from
> > larger software vendors. We have some "bugs", like spellchecking,
> > which is pretty easy to quantify, and that can be done as part of
> > bounties with cash. Yes, the ugly word, paid editing! OMG!
> >
> > But quite frankly, why should we not? ¢1 per fixed single word typo
> > that leads to one-less spelling error? Perhaps even $1 per
> > spellchecked page? Delayed one week to see if anyone reverts the
> > edits?
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 4:17 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > In the Basque wikipedia we are doing monthly contests on different
> > topics, and some of them are focused on quality (i.e. adding references and
> > images). There are some prices every month, usually books or thing related
> > to technology. And people usually like to participate for the fun, and for
> > the prize.
> > > 
> > > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf
> > of Benjamin Lees 
> > > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:14 AM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…
> > >
> > > It's interesting that you chose spellchecking as your example.  On the
> > > English Wikipedia, I tend to see that as an activity that some people
> > > actually do find fun (or relaxing).  Plus, spelling errors (or perceived
> > > spelling errors[1]) are something that unregistered users really like
> > > fixing.  But maybe that varies significantly across language editions.
> > >
> > > In any event, spelling errors are probably the case where eventualism is
> > > most appropriate.  It is rare that someone will be misinformed because of
> > > spelling mistakes, and they serve a useful signaling function in making
> > it
> > > clear that a given piece of content has probably not undergone peer
> > > review.  And rather than driving people away, they tend to draw them
> > > in—Cunningham's law[2] never fails.
> > >
> > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ENGVAR
> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:55 PM John Erling Blad 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Both in Wikipedia and other parts of the Wikimedia-universe there are
> > > > a lot of jobs that should be done, but are not so popular. Because
> > > > they are not done, people get tired and backs away from whatever they
> > > > are doing.
> > > >
> > > > I could give several examples, but lets say spellchecking. It is not
> > > > fun doing spellchecking, even if you are spellchecking something
> > > > written by a professor. Instead of doing spellchecking you do
> > > > something else, like poking around in some code, or write about
> > > > Pokemon. While you do so the professor gets a bit annoyed over the not
> > > > so perfect article, and starts to wonder what happen to the crowd in
> > > > crowdsourcing.
> > > >
> > > > Somewhere along the way the it became so bad to talk about anything
> > > > except the pure wikipedian sitting on top of his pillar with a book
> > > > and a computer, writing articles in solitude, that we completely
> > > > missed the opportunities to get a much larger momentum.
> > > >
> > > > The Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia has over a half a million articles.
> > > > About 10 % lack sources. Nearly all of them has spelling errors. It is
> > > > nothing unusual about this.
> > > >
> > > > Could we use bounties to get some momentum?
> > > >
> > > > John Erling Blad
> > > > /jeblad
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Whatever the reasoning is, I think we should accept that at the moment paid
editing is universally regarded very negatively in virtually all projects.
Non-monetary prizes for competitions may or may not be ok, everything else
is most likely not considered to be ok even if does not explicitly
contradict to any policies.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 5:07 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:

> I was thinking about actually bounties, like in bug bounties from
> larger software vendors. We have some "bugs", like spellchecking,
> which is pretty easy to quantify, and that can be done as part of
> bounties with cash. Yes, the ugly word, paid editing! OMG!
>
> But quite frankly, why should we not? ¢1 per fixed single word typo
> that leads to one-less spelling error? Perhaps even $1 per
> spellchecked page? Delayed one week to see if anyone reverts the
> edits?
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 4:17 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
>  wrote:
> >
> > In the Basque wikipedia we are doing monthly contests on different
> topics, and some of them are focused on quality (i.e. adding references and
> images). There are some prices every month, usually books or thing related
> to technology. And people usually like to participate for the fun, and for
> the prize.
> > 
> > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf
> of Benjamin Lees 
> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:14 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…
> >
> > It's interesting that you chose spellchecking as your example.  On the
> > English Wikipedia, I tend to see that as an activity that some people
> > actually do find fun (or relaxing).  Plus, spelling errors (or perceived
> > spelling errors[1]) are something that unregistered users really like
> > fixing.  But maybe that varies significantly across language editions.
> >
> > In any event, spelling errors are probably the case where eventualism is
> > most appropriate.  It is rare that someone will be misinformed because of
> > spelling mistakes, and they serve a useful signaling function in making
> it
> > clear that a given piece of content has probably not undergone peer
> > review.  And rather than driving people away, they tend to draw them
> > in—Cunningham's law[2] never fails.
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ENGVAR
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:55 PM John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Both in Wikipedia and other parts of the Wikimedia-universe there are
> > > a lot of jobs that should be done, but are not so popular. Because
> > > they are not done, people get tired and backs away from whatever they
> > > are doing.
> > >
> > > I could give several examples, but lets say spellchecking. It is not
> > > fun doing spellchecking, even if you are spellchecking something
> > > written by a professor. Instead of doing spellchecking you do
> > > something else, like poking around in some code, or write about
> > > Pokemon. While you do so the professor gets a bit annoyed over the not
> > > so perfect article, and starts to wonder what happen to the crowd in
> > > crowdsourcing.
> > >
> > > Somewhere along the way the it became so bad to talk about anything
> > > except the pure wikipedian sitting on top of his pillar with a book
> > > and a computer, writing articles in solitude, that we completely
> > > missed the opportunities to get a much larger momentum.
> > >
> > > The Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia has over a half a million articles.
> > > About 10 % lack sources. Nearly all of them has spelling errors. It is
> > > nothing unusual about this.
> > >
> > > Could we use bounties to get some momentum?
> > >
> > > John Erling Blad
> > > /jeblad
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…

[John Erling Blad]

I was thinking about actually bounties, like in bug bounties from
larger software vendors. We have some "bugs", like spellchecking,
which is pretty easy to quantify, and that can be done as part of
bounties with cash. Yes, the ugly word, paid editing! OMG!

But quite frankly, why should we not? ¢1 per fixed single word typo
that leads to one-less spelling error? Perhaps even $1 per
spellchecked page? Delayed one week to see if anyone reverts the
edits?

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 4:17 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
 wrote:
>
> In the Basque wikipedia we are doing monthly contests on different topics, 
> and some of them are focused on quality (i.e. adding references and images). 
> There are some prices every month, usually books or thing related to 
> technology. And people usually like to participate for the fun, and for the 
> prize.
> 
> From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of 
> Benjamin Lees 
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:14 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…
>
> It's interesting that you chose spellchecking as your example.  On the
> English Wikipedia, I tend to see that as an activity that some people
> actually do find fun (or relaxing).  Plus, spelling errors (or perceived
> spelling errors[1]) are something that unregistered users really like
> fixing.  But maybe that varies significantly across language editions.
>
> In any event, spelling errors are probably the case where eventualism is
> most appropriate.  It is rare that someone will be misinformed because of
> spelling mistakes, and they serve a useful signaling function in making it
> clear that a given piece of content has probably not undergone peer
> review.  And rather than driving people away, they tend to draw them
> in—Cunningham's law[2] never fails.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ENGVAR
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:55 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > Both in Wikipedia and other parts of the Wikimedia-universe there are
> > a lot of jobs that should be done, but are not so popular. Because
> > they are not done, people get tired and backs away from whatever they
> > are doing.
> >
> > I could give several examples, but lets say spellchecking. It is not
> > fun doing spellchecking, even if you are spellchecking something
> > written by a professor. Instead of doing spellchecking you do
> > something else, like poking around in some code, or write about
> > Pokemon. While you do so the professor gets a bit annoyed over the not
> > so perfect article, and starts to wonder what happen to the crowd in
> > crowdsourcing.
> >
> > Somewhere along the way the it became so bad to talk about anything
> > except the pure wikipedian sitting on top of his pillar with a book
> > and a computer, writing articles in solitude, that we completely
> > missed the opportunities to get a much larger momentum.
> >
> > The Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia has over a half a million articles.
> > About 10 % lack sources. Nearly all of them has spelling errors. It is
> > nothing unusual about this.
> >
> > Could we use bounties to get some momentum?
> >
> > John Erling Blad
> > /jeblad
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

In the Basque wikipedia we are doing monthly contests on different topics, and 
some of them are focused on quality (i.e. adding references and images). There 
are some prices every month, usually books or thing related to technology. And 
people usually like to participate for the fun, and for the prize.

From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of 
Benjamin Lees 
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:14 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…

It's interesting that you chose spellchecking as your example.  On the
English Wikipedia, I tend to see that as an activity that some people
actually do find fun (or relaxing).  Plus, spelling errors (or perceived
spelling errors[1]) are something that unregistered users really like
fixing.  But maybe that varies significantly across language editions.

In any event, spelling errors are probably the case where eventualism is
most appropriate.  It is rare that someone will be misinformed because of
spelling mistakes, and they serve a useful signaling function in making it
clear that a given piece of content has probably not undergone peer
review.  And rather than driving people away, they tend to draw them
in—Cunningham's law[2] never fails.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ENGVAR
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law


On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:55 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Both in Wikipedia and other parts of the Wikimedia-universe there are
> a lot of jobs that should be done, but are not so popular. Because
> they are not done, people get tired and backs away from whatever they
> are doing.
>
> I could give several examples, but lets say spellchecking. It is not
> fun doing spellchecking, even if you are spellchecking something
> written by a professor. Instead of doing spellchecking you do
> something else, like poking around in some code, or write about
> Pokemon. While you do so the professor gets a bit annoyed over the not
> so perfect article, and starts to wonder what happen to the crowd in
> crowdsourcing.
>
> Somewhere along the way the it became so bad to talk about anything
> except the pure wikipedian sitting on top of his pillar with a book
> and a computer, writing articles in solitude, that we completely
> missed the opportunities to get a much larger momentum.
>
> The Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia has over a half a million articles.
> About 10 % lack sources. Nearly all of them has spelling errors. It is
> nothing unusual about this.
>
> Could we use bounties to get some momentum?
>
> John Erling Blad
> /jeblad
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikidata post-election updating toolkit

[Edward Saperia]

Interesting project:

"Wikidata now has up-to-date and consistent data on political position
holders in current national legislatures for at least 39 countries
,
thanks to work by volunteer community members on the Wikiproject every
politician
.
There are many groups and individuals around the world who need this data
for democratic and accountability initiatives.

Political research is often hampered by difficulties in getting access to
accurate, complete, consistently formatted data in a timely manner. Now
that this data is increasingly to be found in Wikidata, there is a real
possibility for Wikidata to become the definitive source of data about
democracies worldwide — but only if that data can be maintained
sustainably."

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Wikidata_post-election_updating_toolkit

*Edward Saperia*
Dean of Newspeak House 
newsletter  • facebook
 • twitter
 • 07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,