I'm not aware of such wide consensus against paid editing in general.
Wikimedians in Residence, for example, often seem to be paid contributors,
and I can't recall the last time that I heard criticism of the concept of
Wikimedians in Residence. However, you may know more about the consensus on
diverse projects than I do, and I would be interested in reading a
representative sample of links to policies and discussions about this topic
on various projects.
Personally I am against undisclosed paid editing, and I would like to see
WMF do much more to detect, penalize, and deter undisclosed paid editing.
But there are also people and organizations such as well-intentioned WiRs
and their sponsoring institutions who are willing to contribute usefully to
the projects with paid time. I think that paid benevolent contributions to
the projects should be encouraged, for example from organizations like the
American Psychological Association and Stanford University.
I think that the professionalization of Wikimedia is likely to continue
over time. The learning curve is steep for many on-wiki tasks, and we have
a limited supply of knowledgeable volunteers who cannot possibly fulfill
all of our readers' wishes and the needs for behind the scenes support
(such as responses to OTRS tickets, conflict of interest investigations,
translations, and personalized help for new contributors) with the limited
supply of time from knowledgeable volunteers. If results from increased
professionalization are good and there aren't problems with conflict of
interest or noteworthy conflicts between populations of volunteers and
well-intentioned professionals, then I'm okay with this trend and in some
ways I would encourage it because the projects benefit from having more
knowledgeable and well-intentioned participants.
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 4:28 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.
> 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
> > images). There are some prices every month, usually books or thing
> > to technology. And people usually like to participate for the fun, and
> > 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
> > > spelling errors) 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
> > > most appropriate. It is rare that someone will be misinformed because
> > > 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 never fails.
> > >
> > >  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ENGVAR
> > >  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