Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Stevie Benton]

Andrew sums up the situation in the UK very well. For some Wikimedian in
Residence positions they are entirely funded by the chapter. Others involve
funding from both the institution and the chapter. A third model involves a
residency being funded by a third party. For example, there's a residency
which is being announced later this week working with a leading health
charity which is being funded by a third party. It's not announced publicly
yet, so can't give details, but watch this space!

Stevie


On 12 January 2014 19:26, Erlend Bjørtvedt  wrote:

> In Norway, without exception; all 5 wikipedians in residence are either
> paid by the institution (3) or they are retired pensioners from their
> institution. No one paid by chapter or wmf. This means they 'belong' to the
> institution and feel quite a lot lotalty there.
>
> Erlend
>  Den 12. jan. 2014 13:13 skrev "Andrew Gray" 
> følgende:
>
> > It varies. Some are essentially unfunded or self-funded; some are
> > institutionally funded; some are funded by chapter-sourced grants;
> > some are funded by third parties (I was!); and a mix of #2 and #3 is
> > not uncommon.
> >
> > Andrew.
> >
> > On 12 January 2014 10:06, Andre Engels  wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a
> > >> Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think
> the
> > >> Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum),
> > >>
> > >
> > > Wikipedians-in-Residence are not funded by Wikimedia, but by the
> > > organisation where they are working with.
> > >
> > > --
> > > André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

Stevie Benton
Head of External Relations
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a
global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the
Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Erlend Bjørtvedt]

In Norway, without exception; all 5 wikipedians in residence are either
paid by the institution (3) or they are retired pensioners from their
institution. No one paid by chapter or wmf. This means they 'belong' to the
institution and feel quite a lot lotalty there.

Erlend
 Den 12. jan. 2014 13:13 skrev "Andrew Gray" 
følgende:

> It varies. Some are essentially unfunded or self-funded; some are
> institutionally funded; some are funded by chapter-sourced grants;
> some are funded by third parties (I was!); and a mix of #2 and #3 is
> not uncommon.
>
> Andrew.
>
> On 12 January 2014 10:06, Andre Engels  wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a
> >> Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the
> >> Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum),
> >>
> >
> > Wikipedians-in-Residence are not funded by Wikimedia, but by the
> > organisation where they are working with.
> >
> > --
> > André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Andrew Gray]

It varies. Some are essentially unfunded or self-funded; some are
institutionally funded; some are funded by chapter-sourced grants;
some are funded by third parties (I was!); and a mix of #2 and #3 is
not uncommon.

Andrew.

On 12 January 2014 10:06, Andre Engels  wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a
>> Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the
>> Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum),
>>
>
> Wikipedians-in-Residence are not funded by Wikimedia, but by the
> organisation where they are working with.
>
> --
> André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Craig Franklin]

Detail ;-).  Probably the language of the project that the paid edits are
occurring on, I'd imagine.

Cheers,
Craig


On 12 January 2014 21:58, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> In what language does this "disclosure" have to be ??
> Thanks,
>  Gerard
>
>
> On 12 January 2014 12:29, Craig Franklin wrote:
>
>> On 12 January 2014 02:58, MZMcBride  wrote:
>>
>> > Craig Franklin wrote:
>> > >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
>> > >transparent manner.
>> > >
>> > >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.
>> >
>> > Perhaps you're correct, though I'll note that in the recent oDesk case,
>> > you had both a real name and photo attached to the activities, along
>> with
>> > a public profile describing (and rating!) the activities. That seems
>> > fairly transparent to me, yet it still resulted in an immediate
>> departure.
>>
>>
>> I was thinking more along the lines of a centralised disclosure list where
>> people can say "My name is X, my user account is Y, and I am doing paid
>> editing on article Z".  Such a thing would of course invite a lot more
>> scrutiny on the articles in question, which would mean that they're less
>> likely to devolve into hagiography.  From what I can see this is already
>> working quite well and without controversy at places like dewp.  We
>> already
>> have rules (on enwp at least) about promotional language, spam,
>> sockpuppeting, and the like; I don't see any compelling reason we need
>> another separate bunch of rules to deal with these situations in the
>> special case where someone is being paid to edit.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Craig
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Craig Franklin
wrote:

>
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of a centralised disclosure list where
> people can say "My name is X, my user account is Y, and I am doing paid
> editing on article Z".  Such a thing would of course invite a lot more
> scrutiny on the articles in question, which would mean that they're less
> likely to devolve into hagiography.  From what I can see this is already
> working quite well and without controversy at places like dewp.  We already
> have rules (on enwp at least) about promotional language, spam,
> sockpuppeting, and the like; I don't see any compelling reason we need
> another separate bunch of rules to deal with these situations in the
> special case where someone is being paid to edit.
>
>
this is exactly along the lines I've  been thinking along, too. In the
Daily Dot I was suggesting special tagging -  a special flag for paid
editors/accounts would allow for a much better social control of such edits
(and those, who try to dodge the label would be treated like
vandals/sockpuppeteers). This would address the language issues as well.

dariusz "pundit"
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
In what language does this "disclosure" have to be ??
Thanks,
 Gerard


On 12 January 2014 12:29, Craig Franklin  wrote:

> On 12 January 2014 02:58, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > Craig Franklin wrote:
> > >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
> > >transparent manner.
> > >
> > >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.
> >
> > Perhaps you're correct, though I'll note that in the recent oDesk case,
> > you had both a real name and photo attached to the activities, along with
> > a public profile describing (and rating!) the activities. That seems
> > fairly transparent to me, yet it still resulted in an immediate
> departure.
>
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of a centralised disclosure list where
> people can say "My name is X, my user account is Y, and I am doing paid
> editing on article Z".  Such a thing would of course invite a lot more
> scrutiny on the articles in question, which would mean that they're less
> likely to devolve into hagiography.  From what I can see this is already
> working quite well and without controversy at places like dewp.  We already
> have rules (on enwp at least) about promotional language, spam,
> sockpuppeting, and the like; I don't see any compelling reason we need
> another separate bunch of rules to deal with these situations in the
> special case where someone is being paid to edit.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Craig Franklin]

On 12 January 2014 02:58, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Craig Franklin wrote:
> >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
> >transparent manner.
> >
> >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.
>
> Perhaps you're correct, though I'll note that in the recent oDesk case,
> you had both a real name and photo attached to the activities, along with
> a public profile describing (and rating!) the activities. That seems
> fairly transparent to me, yet it still resulted in an immediate departure.


I was thinking more along the lines of a centralised disclosure list where
people can say "My name is X, my user account is Y, and I am doing paid
editing on article Z".  Such a thing would of course invite a lot more
scrutiny on the articles in question, which would mean that they're less
likely to devolve into hagiography.  From what I can see this is already
working quite well and without controversy at places like dewp.  We already
have rules (on enwp at least) about promotional language, spam,
sockpuppeting, and the like; I don't see any compelling reason we need
another separate bunch of rules to deal with these situations in the
special case where someone is being paid to edit.

Cheers,
Craig
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Andre Engels wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe 
> wrote:
>
> > Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a
> > Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the
> > Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum),
> >
>
> Wikipedians-in-Residence are not funded by Wikimedia, but by the
> organisation where they are working with.
>


Not so. Joint funding is common, and substantial funds from donations go to
such projects.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Andre Engels]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a
> Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the
> Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum),
>

Wikipedians-in-Residence are not funded by Wikimedia, but by the
organisation where they are working with.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[David Goodman]

I've looked at a great deal of detectable  paid editing on the english WP.
 Only about 10% of it is of acceptable   quality, with respect to both
notability
of subject and quality of contents.  On similar topics, the quality of
volunteer editing is considerably better--at least 30% is acceptable.
 (about half the enWP submissions have always been rejected at one stage or
another, even with our relatively very undemanding standards).

Like Andrew,  I consider the work on non-profits, especially universities,
to be even worse than the work on commercial businesses, both for paid and
unpaid edits--this is partly enthusiastic alumni, but also the very low
quality of most organizational PR departments)

Unpaid advocacy is a much more difficult problem, because its much harder
to sort out from honest attempts at NPOV. I see no solution to that one
without our general framework.





On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:15 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >I want to open up the discussion even wider. The way things are stated is
> >that paid editing is not acceptable.
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Paid_editing is still a very rough draft,
> but the first sentence is currently:
>
> ---
> Paid editing is fairly common on Wikimedia wikis. It takes various forms,
> with a few being widely accepted and a few being incredibly controversial.
> ---
>
> I would like Wikimedia to be explicit about what is and is not acceptable
> for editors. If Wikidata takes a different approach, we should document
> that as well. But the goal isn't to pr[oe]scribe, it's to describe.
>
> Some of the posts from this mailing list may be very helpful in expanding
> that page. I'm sure there are many other past discussions from the various
> wikis and mailing lists we can incorporate as well. Be bold. :-)  If it's
> just the page title you'd like to change, I agree that the current page
> title ("Paid editing") is not great. The "Conflict of interest editing"
> page has some related content, but that title also didn't feel right to me.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[MZMcBride]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>I want to open up the discussion even wider. The way things are stated is
>that paid editing is not acceptable.


I'm not sure what you mean.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Paid_editing is still a very rough draft,
but the first sentence is currently:

---
Paid editing is fairly common on Wikimedia wikis. It takes various forms,
with a few being widely accepted and a few being incredibly controversial.
---

I would like Wikimedia to be explicit about what is and is not acceptable
for editors. If Wikidata takes a different approach, we should document
that as well. But the goal isn't to pr[oe]scribe, it's to describe.

Some of the posts from this mailing list may be very helpful in expanding
that page. I'm sure there are many other past discussions from the various
wikis and mailing lists we can incorporate as well. Be bold. :-)  If it's
just the page title you'd like to change, I agree that the current page
title ("Paid editing") is not great. The "Conflict of interest editing"
page has some related content, but that title also didn't feel right to me.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,

I want to open up the discussion even wider. The way things are stated is
that paid editing is not acceptable.

This ukase [1] may be considered best practice for the English Wikipedia,
our Wikimedia universe is a bit bigger than that. Wikidata is a completely
different beast with completely different requirements and
aspirations. Wikidata
is "not about facts at all, it is about what sources say".

Consequently as far as I am concerned the en.wp point of view about paid
editing is too narrow. I blogged on this subject [2] and hope you take a
moment to consider the difference between Wikipedia and Wikidata with a
perspective of company involvement in our projects.
Thanks,
 GerardM


[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ukase
[2]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/01/wikidata-interest-by-companies.html


On 11 January 2014 17:58, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Craig Franklin wrote:
> >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
> >transparent manner.
> >
> >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.
>
> Perhaps you're correct, though I'll note that in the recent oDesk case,
> you had both a real name and photo attached to the activities, along with
> a public profile describing (and rating!) the activities. That seems
> fairly transparent to me, yet it still resulted in an immediate departure.
>
> I expanded  from a redirect
> into a stub and created a few additional redirects. It's still a very
> rough draft, but I firmly believe that if there's going to be a "bright
> line" for Wikimedia Foundation employees (and potentially others), it
> should be clearly and explicitly documented.
>
> In the forest, under careful supervision, it may make sense to leave bear
> traps lying around. However in civilized society we really ought to
> minimize potential danger by deactivating any such traps through better
> and clearer information. Posting signs that clearly say "don't enter this
> field because it's full of bear traps" is surely better than simply
> assuming everyone will somehow know that bear traps are a possibility.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[MZMcBride]

Craig Franklin wrote:
>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
>transparent manner.
>
>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.

Perhaps you're correct, though I'll note that in the recent oDesk case,
you had both a real name and photo attached to the activities, along with
a public profile describing (and rating!) the activities. That seems
fairly transparent to me, yet it still resulted in an immediate departure.

I expanded  from a redirect
into a stub and created a few additional redirects. It's still a very
rough draft, but I firmly believe that if there's going to be a "bright
line" for Wikimedia Foundation employees (and potentially others), it
should be clearly and explicitly documented.

In the forest, under careful supervision, it may make sense to leave bear
traps lying around. However in civilized society we really ought to
minimize potential danger by deactivating any such traps through better
and clearer information. Posting signs that clearly say "don't enter this
field because it's full of bear traps" is surely better than simply
assuming everyone will somehow know that bear traps are a possibility.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Ting Chen  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"
> editing
>
> 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.
>



The question to ask here is, what is the primary purpose of Wikipedia? Is
it a social media site, or is it a project designed to build a free
encyclopedia?

It seems to me the Wikimedia Foundation measures its success primarily by
the following metrics:

1. Number of page views.
2. Number of articles.
3. Number of editors.
4. Number of edits.

These are the main metrics I see reported. They are all purely
quantitative, social media-type metrics, focused on participation. Where
are the metrics measuring the *quality* of the end product, the free
information provided to the world in the shape of encyclopedia articles?

Purely quantitative metrics may have been appropriate in the early years of
the project, when building participation was crucial. But given Wikipedia's
importance in the information landscape today, measuring and improving
quality should be a far higher priority than it presently is, in my eyes.

And it should be borne in mind that a high number of edits may actually be
detrimental to article quality: if an article is heavily edited, saying one
thing today and another tomorrow, this is very often a sign that something
is wrong with the way the content is curated.

Example: http://wikipediocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Klee-Irwin.gif

Similarly, a high number of articles may be good for page views, but may
prove detrimental to article quality, as the shrinking editor community is
too stretched to curate such a large and increasing number of articles
responsibly. I believe his point has been reached already, resulting in
very large numbers of truly substandard articles that nobody is available
to monitor and improve.

Again, my feeling is that this focus on quantity, on participation for
participation's sake, along with the attendant problems, is particularly
pronounced in the English Wikipedia.




> Greetings
> Ting
>
>
> Am 10.01.2014 16:23, schrieb Peter Gervai:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Ting Chen  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
>>> so
>>> 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. :-)
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Craig Franklin]

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
transparent manner.

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.

Cheers,
Craig


On 11 January 2014 06:35, Ting Chen  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"
> editing
>
> 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.
>
> Greetings
> Ting
>
>
> Am 10.01.2014 16:23, schrieb Peter Gervai:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Ting Chen  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
>>> so
>>> 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. :-)
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[geni]

On 10 January 2014 21:06, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Quite. Museums' self-interest in employing a Wikipedian-in-Residence is
> often quite evident from the way the position is described ("raise our
> profile" etc.)
>
> And what about, say, the Henry Ford Museum? Or the Volkswagen museum? Is
> that not knowledge? Is it "evil", because it's part of a business?
>

The term you are looking for is propaganda. Or PR if you like being invited
to a certain class of party.



> Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a
> Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the
> Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum),


You've never actually been to the York Museum have you? Its a typical
municipal museum. IE a place to dump all the historical stuff that you can
just leave sitting around in the street. Its collection is better than some
but only due to its age.

The tourist targeting museum in the area would be the Jorvik Viking Centre.

I'd assume the largest tourist draw is actually the National Railway Museum
(certainly it has the best class of cameras) but that is a national
collection rather than regional.




-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Andrew Lih  wrote:

> Ting and Christophe,
>
> Glad to hear we are moving forward on finding more sophisticated ways of
> thinking about "paid" editing. At least for the English Wikipedians I've
> talked to, many are pleasantly surprised that the European editions are
> able to find a cooperative relationship with paid, corporate entities. The
> Signpost article out today details some of that, but it merits a
> comprehensive inventory and study to compare best practices. (Of course,
> the argument can always be made about English Wikipedia as a weird special
> case because of its profile and large community. I intentionally choose not
> to use the horrible word "exceptionalism"!)
>



I suspect the difference is that the English Wikipedia listened for so long
to Jimmy Wales, whose views on paid editing are well known, while the other
projects just did what they thought made sense.

No other Wikipedia I know has the same witch hunt mentality against
business as the English Wikipedia.

While the German Wikipedia verifies company accounts, to prevent
impersonation, the English Wikipedia bans them on sight and asks the
editors concerned to register alternative user names that bear no
resemblance to the company name. Tens of thousands of company accounts have
been banned that way, and asked to come back with an innocuous name.

This way, transparency is lost, and it *looks* as though it is all done by
volunteers, but the reality is the same as before. It is window dressing.

And in the English Wikipedia, as in any other, practically any company
article one looks into turns out on closer inspection to have been edited
by employees of that company.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=262

Other Wikipedias accept this, and are upfront about it. The English
Wikipedia is in a permanent hissy fit about it.



In last night's episode of Wikipedia Weekly podcast, we talked about this
> as well [1]. In general, there are multiple parameters regarding the issue
> of COI editing that goes beyond pay.
>
> 1. Pay
> 2. Neutrality
> 3. Advocacy
> 4. Transparency
>
> Even then, the term "advocacy" is an imprecise and nearly useless term. Are
> you advocating for a client? Are you advocating for the public good? Same
> word, completely different motivations. So "paid advocacy" as a phrase,
> uncontextualized, is not useful.
>
> That's why I really like the GLAM use of the phrase of choosing to work
> with "like minded institutions." A national museum with editorial
> independence is a good like-minded institution for the Wikimedia community.
> A think tank that works to convince the public that global warming is a
> myth… not so much.
>
> If an institution is not like-minded, then the process of educating and
> working with them with appropriate strict guidelines is a viable solution.
> We see that this can work with the examples of Swedish and German
> Wikipedias (and, it seems, others)
>
> Back to the four factors above: You can have paid, neutral, transparent
> editors that advocate for something good -- like better public access to
> public records. GLAM Wikipedians-in-residence are a good example of this,
> where they ensure that the interests of the public and Wikipedia's
> principles come first. So their advocacy is for the principles of better
> public knowledge, and a full time employee is working on it. This is a 4x
> positive outcome, even though the words "paid" and "advocacy" are used.
>
> On the other hand, in the case of Wiki-PR: it's editing for pay, without
> transparency, without neutrality and advocating for a paying customer's
> benefit. That's a quadruple no-no. This type of activity must be banned.
> But if there is a middle way on this, in working with corporations in a
> straightforward way, we would be silly not to investigate this, as certain
> Wikipedia editions already show that it is possible.
>
> I've highlighted in the past that we have systemic problems in Wikipedia
> with unpaid editors resulting in persistent non-neutral content. The
> university and college articles are the best (ie. worst) examples of this
> -- these always read like brochures that brag about the top accomplishments
> and rankings of a university because the number of alumni and students that
> put in positive statements far outnumber anyone who could pull them back
> into neutral territory. Unpaid, non-neutral, alma mater-advocacy is rampant
> and persistent.
>
> I hope we can start a longer dialogue about this at Wikimania. I'd be happy
> to propose not just a session, but an entire track at Wikimania to address
> this, including brainstorming/sharing sessions to get more views from other
> language editions.
>
> -Andrew
>
> [1] Wikipedia Weekly episode 108 -
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0698SX41VsE
> Discussion of paid editing at 33 minutes into the podcast
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:
>
> > Hello dear all,
> >
> > I would like to be more 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)  wrote:

> (Note these are my own personal views and in no way reflect any views of
> the WMF or anyone else)
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Christophe Henner <
> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Now, the question about "paid advocacy". Again, one of our core
> > principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
> > they're paid or not, is not relevant.
> >
> > So, to me, the "paid foobar" question is not the one in debate here.
> > The one we're actually debating about is "do we want for profit
> > organization to edit Wikipedia".
> >
>
> I'd take this one step further: *paid* advocacy isn't necessarily the thing
> we should be that much concerned about, as unpaid advocacy is just as bad
> for the integrity of our content. There's no difference between someone who
> inserts POV content because they're being paid to do so and someone who
> inserts POV content because of their religious beliefs or personal
> relationships or the like.
>


That's the key point right here. The entire focus on preventing "paid
advocacy editing" is like fitting a 12-inch steel door at the front of the
house, while leaving open doors and windows for social entrepreneurs of all
sorts on all the other sides of the building.




>
> On the other hand, a paid advocate may perhaps be more concerning from a
> community standpoint because it's likely that the paid advocate is going to
> have more time and resources to devote to inserting POV content (and to
> doing so in ways less likely to be "caught") than most unpaid advocates.
>
> Even more generally, even paid editing without advocacy may give a stigma
> to the project even if the content really is fully NPOV. And, as mentioned
> elsewhere, even paid editing without advocacy might discourage non-paid
> contributions for various reasons. These reasons might be behind some of
> the opposition to all paid editing.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Quite. Museums' self-interest in employing a Wikipedian-in-Residence is
often quite evident from the way the position is described ("raise our
profile" etc.)

And what about, say, the Henry Ford Museum? Or the Volkswagen museum? Is
that not knowledge? Is it "evil", because it's part of a business?

Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a
Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the
Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum), resulting in the creation
of truly niche content that seems designed to benefit local tourism more
than mass education, while baulking at the idea of paying legal, scientific
or medical experts to look over the most viewed, most critical legal,
scientific or medical articles, i.e. articles that are accessed by
thousands of people each day. I'd rather see the money go to a trained
expert working on those articles, much along the lines Ting (somewhat
reluctantly) considered above, even it this were to result – shock! horror!
– in a stable, authoritative Wikipedia article.

At any rate, I am sure donors would rather see their money go towards
improving the quality of key encyclopedic topics than see them spent on
funding microcoverage of some tourist region.




On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:

> A museum is a commercial entity. They live from ticket incomes from
> customers. Universities live from tuition fees from students who freely
> choose which university is most attractive to them.
>
> The difference between these institutions editing, and a private railway
> company when it comes to coi issues, is in my view  non-existent.
>
> Erlend
> Den 10. jan. 2014 14:14 skrev "Anders Wennersten" <
> m...@anderswennersten.se>
> følgende:
>
> > Thanks Christophe for your long ,but very good thoughts and experiences
> > from paid editing from pro-profit organization.
> >
> > I fully  support your approach and hope we can put energy, instead of
> just
> > being "against", to elaborate on how to best handle the reality that
> > pro-profit organization do paid editing. Should we ask them to be be open
> > with their userids  relation to their companies/organizations for
> example,
> > which I think is the (only) wish we should have (and paid editors from
> GLAM
> > already do this) .
> >
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Christophe Henner skrev 2014-01-10 13:34:
> >
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> I'll try to elaborate on this topic :)
> >>
> >> First of all, in 2011 in Haifa I did a first talk about companies and
> >> Wikipedia. I did that because I was making a "study" (emphasis on the
> >> " as I'm not keen to say it's a study and more of a detailed
> >> observation) of the state of the articles of the top 40 french
> >> companies.
> >>
> >> During that talk I explained how I believe companies could help us
> >> improve our projects. I won't get too much into that as, since then,
> >> the debate evolved from "companies editing Wikipedia" to "Paid editing
> >> is evil".
> >>
> >> This year at Wikimania I gave two talks about this very topic, one
> >> about how third party organizations can help us and the second on a
> >> framework to have editing.
> >>
> >> Of course, as usual, some people were "against it".
> >>
> >> But how can we, as a community, be against "paid editing" on one hand
> >> when on the other hand we seek "paid editing" from GLAMs, researchers
> >> from state organizations, etc.
> >>
> >> The question whether we allow, or not, paid editing is non-existent.
> >> Paid editing is allowed, we already allowed it, we even support it;
> >>
> >> Now, the question about "paid advocacy". Again, one of our core
> >> principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
> >> they're paid or not, is not relevant.
> >>
> >> So, to me, the "paid foobar" question is not the one in debate here.
> >> The one we're actually debating about is "do we want for profit
> >> organization to edit Wikipedia".
> >>
> >> So yes, paid organizations have an interest in editing Wikipedia, but
> >> just as much as GLAMs have an interest in editing our projects. In
> >> fact, when Wikimedian meets GLAMs one of the key arguments is "look at
> >> (pick past project that got great coverage such as the bundesarchives,
> >> British Museum, etc)". We show them they have an interest in
> >> committing resources, both financial and human, to improve Wikimedia
> >> projects.
> >>
> >> So the "they have an interest in editing" isn't an argument in the
> >> end, as, of course a lot of editors have an interest in editing. And
> >> we're using it. When we think or work on how researchers valorize
> >> their edits in their cursus, those researchers have an interest in
> >> editing Wikipedia.
> >>
> >> So, really what is that people working for a company have that makes
> >> it so we have to ban them to edit? If we already have people paid to
> >> edit, if we have people with interests (henceforth some sort of COI),
> >> what do they

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Christophe's comment about Wikipedia's company articles not being very
complete reminded me of a fun infographic:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5474/11871822903_714f36a83e_h.jpg

There is a strange, systemic hostility towards business at work in the
English Wikipedia. Combined with a love for pop trivia ...


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Christophe Henner <
christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'll try to elaborate on this topic :)
>
> First of all, in 2011 in Haifa I did a first talk about companies and
> Wikipedia. I did that because I was making a "study" (emphasis on the
> " as I'm not keen to say it's a study and more of a detailed
> observation) of the state of the articles of the top 40 french
> companies.
>
> During that talk I explained how I believe companies could help us
> improve our projects. I won't get too much into that as, since then,
> the debate evolved from "companies editing Wikipedia" to "Paid editing
> is evil".
>
> This year at Wikimania I gave two talks about this very topic, one
> about how third party organizations can help us and the second on a
> framework to have editing.
>
> Of course, as usual, some people were "against it".
>
> But how can we, as a community, be against "paid editing" on one hand
> when on the other hand we seek "paid editing" from GLAMs, researchers
> from state organizations, etc.
>
> The question whether we allow, or not, paid editing is non-existent.
> Paid editing is allowed, we already allowed it, we even support it;
>
> Now, the question about "paid advocacy". Again, one of our core
> principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
> they're paid or not, is not relevant.
>
> So, to me, the "paid foobar" question is not the one in debate here.
> The one we're actually debating about is "do we want for profit
> organization to edit Wikipedia".
>
> So yes, paid organizations have an interest in editing Wikipedia, but
> just as much as GLAMs have an interest in editing our projects. In
> fact, when Wikimedian meets GLAMs one of the key arguments is "look at
> (pick past project that got great coverage such as the bundesarchives,
> British Museum, etc)". We show them they have an interest in
> committing resources, both financial and human, to improve Wikimedia
> projects.
>
> So the "they have an interest in editing" isn't an argument in the
> end, as, of course a lot of editors have an interest in editing. And
> we're using it. When we think or work on how researchers valorize
> their edits in their cursus, those researchers have an interest in
> editing Wikipedia.
>
> So, really what is that people working for a company have that makes
> it so we have to ban them to edit? If we already have people paid to
> edit, if we have people with interests (henceforth some sort of COI),
> what do they have the others don't?
>
> Now, why do I strongly believe we should encourage companies to edit
> Wikipedia.
>
> First of all, as I said some years ago I evaluated the quality of
> company articles on the French Wikipedia. Most of them were crap.
> Either outdated, incomplete or with wrong information, all those
> articles were poor; And we're talking about the top 40 french
> companies, such as Orange, L'Oréal, Renault, BNP, etc.
>
> The volunteer community isn't keen to improve and maintain those
> articles. Companies are willing to do it. So we prefer to have poor
> articles instead of good ones because there's a risk companies will
> act wrongfully (I hope I'm not the only one to see the irony in this
> situation where we prefer to ban editors because there's a risk
> they'll do wrong. We should do that for all the projects, Close them
> to editing because there's a risk people will do wrong.).
>
> Adapting our projects to provide a framework where companies can
> easily fit in and edit as a direct consequence, improve the quality of
> their articles.
>
> Companies that have the resources to commit to such things are,
> usually, big and sometimes old company. Imagine that in a few year,
> being involved with the Wikimedia projects is so natural for those
> companies that they release their archives on the Wikimedia Projects.
> What archives do you ask?
>
> Orange, for example, is the former organization in charge of the
> french telecom. They managed telephone for a very long time and have a
> long history in R&D. Their archives must be astounding. Containing
> documents, pictures and videos about telecomunication that should be
> awesome. That are part of our history.
> Right now, those archives are dusting in some building. And in few
> years they might disappear.
> Our stance, being so opposed to companies making the first step
> (editing) prevent companies to go the next step, release. And in fact,
> indirectly, we're preventing knowledge to be freed. Awesome.
>
> Lastly, those companies have huge R&D budgets and employ thousands of
> researchers and engineers. Imagine a company that employs 1 000
> researchers. A

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Ting Chen]

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" 
editing


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.


Greetings
Ting

Am 10.01.2014 16:23, schrieb Peter Gervai:

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Ting Chen  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 so
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. :-)

Peter

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Ting Chen]

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" 
editing


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.


Greetings
Ting


Am 10.01.2014 16:23, schrieb Peter Gervai:

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Ting Chen  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 so
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. :-)

Peter

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

On 10 January 2014 20:12, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:

> I very much agree with this. Currently we just don't have the manpower to
> explain to 'the corporate world' in an understanding and clear fashion that
> what they are trying to do is *all wrong*, and what it is they *can*
> actually do. As long as corporate spam outnumbers well-meaning Wikipedians
> who are willing to invest time and effort in explaining by roughly a factor
> 1 : 10, there is little we can do.


Or, as is the case on the Dutch-language Wikipedia; as long as hardcore
anti-anything-to-do-with-corporate-whatever Wikipedians can "outgun"
well-meaning Wikipedians who are willing to invest time and effort in
creating and maintaining content about corporate entities in the equivalent
of AfD, there is little we can do.

Michel
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Anders Wennersten]

Martijn Hoekstra skrev 2014-01-10 20:12:


I very much agree with this. Currently we just don't have the manpower to
explain to 'the corporate world'


Who do you refer to when you talk of "we". I it a group of people or a 
language community. You are certainly not laking for all communities, as 
the community I work recognize the issues you take up, but we feel we 
can handle it OK (but still have severe problem with the "hard" POVer re 
racism etc)


Anders




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> Arne Klempert, 10/01/2014 17:51:
>
>> I've heard that before from Wikipedians. However, it does not match
>> with what communication professionals keep telling me. Even larger
>> companies with solid communication departments are usually not in a
>> place to spend enough ressources to correct their articles beyond
>> basic facts. [...]
>>
>
> That only means that their return on investment is too little for them,
> not that they wouldn't have enough resources. Usually, that's because what
> they're trying to do is impossible, so they keep hitting a wall. Wiki-PR's
> very reasonable prices show that the job can be very cost-effective and not
> so heavy, if one knows what can survive in the system.
> In my experience, every time you talk with a company's communication
> person you have to spend hours convincing them that every single thing they
> thought or wanted to do on Wikipedia is totally impossible, then after a
> complete mind-reset you can teach them the simple things they can do
> successfully. Things could be much smoother, but our approaches are too
> inefficient (or our resources insufficient by several orders of magnitudes
> with current approaches) for the necessary mass-education of communication
> professionals to happen and enable them to productive interaction.
>
> Nemo
>
>
I very much agree with this. Currently we just don't have the manpower to
explain to 'the corporate world' in an understanding and clear fashion that
what they are trying to do is *all wrong*, and what it is they *can*
actually do. As long as corporate spam outnumbers well-meaning Wikipedians
who are willing to invest time and effort in explaining by roughly a factor
1 : 10, there is little we can do. But at the same time, it's the work
environment of those tons of spam that make our editors treat every new
contribution and contributer like spam and spammers - even the ones that
aren't, which fosters an aggressive uninviting environment that inhibits
the influx of people who can become seasoned Wikipedians who can help deal
with the issue.

I'm pretty sure that's the problem. I wish I had a solution to it too, but
unfortunately I don't.




>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Arne Klempert, 10/01/2014 17:51:

I've heard that before from Wikipedians. However, it does not match
with what communication professionals keep telling me. Even larger
companies with solid communication departments are usually not in a
place to spend enough ressources to correct their articles beyond
basic facts. [...]


That only means that their return on investment is too little for them, 
not that they wouldn't have enough resources. Usually, that's because 
what they're trying to do is impossible, so they keep hitting a wall. 
Wiki-PR's very reasonable prices show that the job can be very 
cost-effective and not so heavy, if one knows what can survive in the 
system.
In my experience, every time you talk with a company's communication 
person you have to spend hours convincing them that every single thing 
they thought or wanted to do on Wikipedia is totally impossible, then 
after a complete mind-reset you can teach them the simple things they 
can do successfully. Things could be much smoother, but our approaches 
are too inefficient (or our resources insufficient by several orders of 
magnitudes with current approaches) for the necessary mass-education of 
communication professionals to happen and enable them to productive 
interaction.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Arne Klempert]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
 wrote:
> On the other hand, a paid advocate may perhaps be more concerning from a
> community standpoint because it's likely that the paid advocate is going to
> have more time and resources to devote to inserting POV content (and to
> doing so in ways less likely to be "caught") than most unpaid advocates.

I've heard that before from Wikipedians. However, it does not match
with what communication professionals keep telling me. Even larger
companies with solid communication departments are usually not in a
place to spend enough ressources to correct their articles beyond
basic facts. Many of them tried (directly and/or through talk pages)
but gave up at some point. For companies engaging with Wikipedia can
be terribly time-consuming - especially if they want to do it right.

Cheers,
Arne
-- 
Arne Klempert, http://www.klempert.de/
This gmail address is for mailing lists only. Please
use @gmail.com for personal emails.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Lionel Allorge]

Hi,

> I agree it's an important distinction. I personally think it could be
> worthwhile to think about a separate non-profit organization which
> receives payments and manages contracts to systematically expand
> Wikipedia coverage, with payment entirely or largely decoupled from
> specific articles (at most coupled to specific domains) and the
> organization's policies being developed transparently in partnership
> with the community. I suspect such an org could receive significant
> grants and public support in its own right.
...
> I'd love to see more experiments that are conducted in full awareness
> of the ethical issues involved, both with funding models for free
> content, and with other incentive structures. WikiMoney was actually
> quite popular for a short while, considering how much of a pain it was
> to actually administer!

I agree with you that the Wikimedia Foundation is not in the best position to 
pay people to produce Free content. But there are many fields where it would 
useful to pay people to produce Free (as in freedom) content.

For exemple, we could have a Free news website with paid journalists that 
could get to places forbiden to amateurs like in press conferences or get 
interviews with celebrities.

We could have a Free photography agency that could send professionals to take 
pictures and videos all over the world, especially where amateurs won't be 
allowed like in war zones.

We could have a publishing company that would pay specialists to write Free 
books about subjects where we lack tertiary sources. It would be a great way 
not to antagonize renowned scientists who might get bitten if they edit 
Wikipedia directly.

Those Free texts, pictures, videos, etc. could then be used by the Wikimedia 
projects by amateurs.

Best regards.

-- 
Lionel Allorge
April : http://www.april.org
Lune Rouge : http://www.lunerouge.org
Wikimedia France : http://wikimedia.fr


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Christophe Henner]

A track about that \o/

It took me years to have 2 sessions and they were the only 2 tackling
that issue last year :)
--
Christophe


On 10 January 2014 16:17, Andrew Lih  wrote:
> Ting and Christophe,
>
> Glad to hear we are moving forward on finding more sophisticated ways of
> thinking about "paid" editing. At least for the English Wikipedians I've
> talked to, many are pleasantly surprised that the European editions are
> able to find a cooperative relationship with paid, corporate entities. The
> Signpost article out today details some of that, but it merits a
> comprehensive inventory and study to compare best practices. (Of course,
> the argument can always be made about English Wikipedia as a weird special
> case because of its profile and large community. I intentionally choose not
> to use the horrible word "exceptionalism"!)
>
> In last night's episode of Wikipedia Weekly podcast, we talked about this
> as well [1]. In general, there are multiple parameters regarding the issue
> of COI editing that goes beyond pay.
>
> 1. Pay
> 2. Neutrality
> 3. Advocacy
> 4. Transparency
>
> Even then, the term "advocacy" is an imprecise and nearly useless term. Are
> you advocating for a client? Are you advocating for the public good? Same
> word, completely different motivations. So "paid advocacy" as a phrase,
> uncontextualized, is not useful.
>
> That's why I really like the GLAM use of the phrase of choosing to work
> with "like minded institutions." A national museum with editorial
> independence is a good like-minded institution for the Wikimedia community.
> A think tank that works to convince the public that global warming is a
> myth… not so much.
>
> If an institution is not like-minded, then the process of educating and
> working with them with appropriate strict guidelines is a viable solution.
> We see that this can work with the examples of Swedish and German
> Wikipedias (and, it seems, others)
>
> Back to the four factors above: You can have paid, neutral, transparent
> editors that advocate for something good -- like better public access to
> public records. GLAM Wikipedians-in-residence are a good example of this,
> where they ensure that the interests of the public and Wikipedia's
> principles come first. So their advocacy is for the principles of better
> public knowledge, and a full time employee is working on it. This is a 4x
> positive outcome, even though the words "paid" and "advocacy" are used.
>
> On the other hand, in the case of Wiki-PR: it's editing for pay, without
> transparency, without neutrality and advocating for a paying customer's
> benefit. That's a quadruple no-no. This type of activity must be banned.
> But if there is a middle way on this, in working with corporations in a
> straightforward way, we would be silly not to investigate this, as certain
> Wikipedia editions already show that it is possible.
>
> I've highlighted in the past that we have systemic problems in Wikipedia
> with unpaid editors resulting in persistent non-neutral content. The
> university and college articles are the best (ie. worst) examples of this
> -- these always read like brochures that brag about the top accomplishments
> and rankings of a university because the number of alumni and students that
> put in positive statements far outnumber anyone who could pull them back
> into neutral territory. Unpaid, non-neutral, alma mater-advocacy is rampant
> and persistent.
>
> I hope we can start a longer dialogue about this at Wikimania. I'd be happy
> to propose not just a session, but an entire track at Wikimania to address
> this, including brainstorming/sharing sessions to get more views from other
> language editions.
>
> -Andrew
>
> [1] Wikipedia Weekly episode 108 -
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0698SX41VsE
> Discussion of paid editing at 33 minutes into the podcast
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:
>
>> Hello dear all,
>>
>> I would like to be more cautious about the difference between the "good"
>> paid editing and the "bad" paid advocacy.
>>
>> There are two reasons why I don't want to separate in this way.
>>
>> First of there is no clear boundary between the "good" and "bad" like
>> black and white. There is a gradient of grey between the two. And that
>> gradient is not a narrow one but a very broad one. And it depends from the
>> perspective of the people who look upon the matter. For one maybe a
>> behavior is the dark white but for the other one it may be a bright black.
>>
>> Second I want to especially respond to the idea that Erik brought up: an
>> organization that hire people to write qualified articles. I wrote in the
>> other mail that I believe paid editing changes the collaboratory nature of
>> our projects but did not really elaborate on why I think so. I want to do
>> this now. Let me construct an example to emphasize why I think so. I will
>> now take an example which leaves almost no room for interpretation about
>> black and white: the the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Peter Gervai]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Ting Chen  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 so
> 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. :-)

Peter

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Andrew Lih]

Ting and Christophe,

Glad to hear we are moving forward on finding more sophisticated ways of
thinking about "paid" editing. At least for the English Wikipedians I've
talked to, many are pleasantly surprised that the European editions are
able to find a cooperative relationship with paid, corporate entities. The
Signpost article out today details some of that, but it merits a
comprehensive inventory and study to compare best practices. (Of course,
the argument can always be made about English Wikipedia as a weird special
case because of its profile and large community. I intentionally choose not
to use the horrible word "exceptionalism"!)

In last night's episode of Wikipedia Weekly podcast, we talked about this
as well [1]. In general, there are multiple parameters regarding the issue
of COI editing that goes beyond pay.

1. Pay
2. Neutrality
3. Advocacy
4. Transparency

Even then, the term "advocacy" is an imprecise and nearly useless term. Are
you advocating for a client? Are you advocating for the public good? Same
word, completely different motivations. So "paid advocacy" as a phrase,
uncontextualized, is not useful.

That's why I really like the GLAM use of the phrase of choosing to work
with "like minded institutions." A national museum with editorial
independence is a good like-minded institution for the Wikimedia community.
A think tank that works to convince the public that global warming is a
myth… not so much.

If an institution is not like-minded, then the process of educating and
working with them with appropriate strict guidelines is a viable solution.
We see that this can work with the examples of Swedish and German
Wikipedias (and, it seems, others)

Back to the four factors above: You can have paid, neutral, transparent
editors that advocate for something good -- like better public access to
public records. GLAM Wikipedians-in-residence are a good example of this,
where they ensure that the interests of the public and Wikipedia's
principles come first. So their advocacy is for the principles of better
public knowledge, and a full time employee is working on it. This is a 4x
positive outcome, even though the words "paid" and "advocacy" are used.

On the other hand, in the case of Wiki-PR: it's editing for pay, without
transparency, without neutrality and advocating for a paying customer's
benefit. That's a quadruple no-no. This type of activity must be banned.
But if there is a middle way on this, in working with corporations in a
straightforward way, we would be silly not to investigate this, as certain
Wikipedia editions already show that it is possible.

I've highlighted in the past that we have systemic problems in Wikipedia
with unpaid editors resulting in persistent non-neutral content. The
university and college articles are the best (ie. worst) examples of this
-- these always read like brochures that brag about the top accomplishments
and rankings of a university because the number of alumni and students that
put in positive statements far outnumber anyone who could pull them back
into neutral territory. Unpaid, non-neutral, alma mater-advocacy is rampant
and persistent.

I hope we can start a longer dialogue about this at Wikimania. I'd be happy
to propose not just a session, but an entire track at Wikimania to address
this, including brainstorming/sharing sessions to get more views from other
language editions.

-Andrew

[1] Wikipedia Weekly episode 108 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0698SX41VsE
Discussion of paid editing at 33 minutes into the podcast



On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:

> Hello dear all,
>
> I would like to be more cautious about the difference between the "good"
> paid editing and the "bad" paid advocacy.
>
> There are two reasons why I don't want to separate in this way.
>
> First of there is no clear boundary between the "good" and "bad" like
> black and white. There is a gradient of grey between the two. And that
> gradient is not a narrow one but a very broad one. And it depends from the
> perspective of the people who look upon the matter. For one maybe a
> behavior is the dark white but for the other one it may be a bright black.
>
> Second I want to especially respond to the idea that Erik brought up: an
> organization that hire people to write qualified articles. I wrote in the
> other mail that I believe paid editing changes the collaboratory nature of
> our projects but did not really elaborate on why I think so. I want to do
> this now. Let me construct an example to emphasize why I think so. I will
> now take an example which leaves almost no room for interpretation about
> black and white: the theoretical physics. Let's say there is a charitable
> non-profit organization that hires reknowned theoretical physicists to
> write 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 rela

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Brad Jorsch (Anomie)]

(Note these are my own personal views and in no way reflect any views of
the WMF or anyone else)

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Christophe Henner <
christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Now, the question about "paid advocacy". Again, one of our core
> principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
> they're paid or not, is not relevant.
>
> So, to me, the "paid foobar" question is not the one in debate here.
> The one we're actually debating about is "do we want for profit
> organization to edit Wikipedia".
>

I'd take this one step further: *paid* advocacy isn't necessarily the thing
we should be that much concerned about, as unpaid advocacy is just as bad
for the integrity of our content. There's no difference between someone who
inserts POV content because they're being paid to do so and someone who
inserts POV content because of their religious beliefs or personal
relationships or the like.

On the other hand, a paid advocate may perhaps be more concerning from a
community standpoint because it's likely that the paid advocate is going to
have more time and resources to devote to inserting POV content (and to
doing so in ways less likely to be "caught") than most unpaid advocates.

Even more generally, even paid editing without advocacy may give a stigma
to the project even if the content really is fully NPOV. And, as mentioned
elsewhere, even paid editing without advocacy might discourage non-paid
contributions for various reasons. These reasons might be behind some of
the opposition to all paid editing.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Erlend Bjørtvedt]

But even they sell souvenires and books..
Den 10. jan. 2014 16:05 skrev "Katie Chan"  følgende:

> On 10/01/2014 15:01, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
>
>> A museum is a commercial entity. They live from ticket incomes from
>> customers.
>>
>
> Not all museum charges people entry... ;)
>
> --
> Katie Chan
> Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the
> author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the
> author is associated with or employed by.
>
>
> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
>  - Heinrich Heine
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Katie Chan]

On 10/01/2014 15:01, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:

A museum is a commercial entity. They live from ticket incomes from
customers.


Not all museum charges people entry... ;)

--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is 
associated with or employed by.


Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
 - Heinrich Heine


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Erlend Bjørtvedt]

A museum is a commercial entity. They live from ticket incomes from
customers. Universities live from tuition fees from students who freely
choose which university is most attractive to them.

The difference between these institutions editing, and a private railway
company when it comes to coi issues, is in my view  non-existent.

Erlend
Den 10. jan. 2014 14:14 skrev "Anders Wennersten" 
følgende:

> Thanks Christophe for your long ,but very good thoughts and experiences
> from paid editing from pro-profit organization.
>
> I fully  support your approach and hope we can put energy, instead of just
> being "against", to elaborate on how to best handle the reality that
> pro-profit organization do paid editing. Should we ask them to be be open
> with their userids  relation to their companies/organizations for example,
> which I think is the (only) wish we should have (and paid editors from GLAM
> already do this) .
>
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
> Christophe Henner skrev 2014-01-10 13:34:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'll try to elaborate on this topic :)
>>
>> First of all, in 2011 in Haifa I did a first talk about companies and
>> Wikipedia. I did that because I was making a "study" (emphasis on the
>> " as I'm not keen to say it's a study and more of a detailed
>> observation) of the state of the articles of the top 40 french
>> companies.
>>
>> During that talk I explained how I believe companies could help us
>> improve our projects. I won't get too much into that as, since then,
>> the debate evolved from "companies editing Wikipedia" to "Paid editing
>> is evil".
>>
>> This year at Wikimania I gave two talks about this very topic, one
>> about how third party organizations can help us and the second on a
>> framework to have editing.
>>
>> Of course, as usual, some people were "against it".
>>
>> But how can we, as a community, be against "paid editing" on one hand
>> when on the other hand we seek "paid editing" from GLAMs, researchers
>> from state organizations, etc.
>>
>> The question whether we allow, or not, paid editing is non-existent.
>> Paid editing is allowed, we already allowed it, we even support it;
>>
>> Now, the question about "paid advocacy". Again, one of our core
>> principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
>> they're paid or not, is not relevant.
>>
>> So, to me, the "paid foobar" question is not the one in debate here.
>> The one we're actually debating about is "do we want for profit
>> organization to edit Wikipedia".
>>
>> So yes, paid organizations have an interest in editing Wikipedia, but
>> just as much as GLAMs have an interest in editing our projects. In
>> fact, when Wikimedian meets GLAMs one of the key arguments is "look at
>> (pick past project that got great coverage such as the bundesarchives,
>> British Museum, etc)". We show them they have an interest in
>> committing resources, both financial and human, to improve Wikimedia
>> projects.
>>
>> So the "they have an interest in editing" isn't an argument in the
>> end, as, of course a lot of editors have an interest in editing. And
>> we're using it. When we think or work on how researchers valorize
>> their edits in their cursus, those researchers have an interest in
>> editing Wikipedia.
>>
>> So, really what is that people working for a company have that makes
>> it so we have to ban them to edit? If we already have people paid to
>> edit, if we have people with interests (henceforth some sort of COI),
>> what do they have the others don't?
>>
>> Now, why do I strongly believe we should encourage companies to edit
>> Wikipedia.
>>
>> First of all, as I said some years ago I evaluated the quality of
>> company articles on the French Wikipedia. Most of them were crap.
>> Either outdated, incomplete or with wrong information, all those
>> articles were poor; And we're talking about the top 40 french
>> companies, such as Orange, L'Oréal, Renault, BNP, etc.
>>
>> The volunteer community isn't keen to improve and maintain those
>> articles. Companies are willing to do it. So we prefer to have poor
>> articles instead of good ones because there's a risk companies will
>> act wrongfully (I hope I'm not the only one to see the irony in this
>> situation where we prefer to ban editors because there's a risk
>> they'll do wrong. We should do that for all the projects, Close them
>> to editing because there's a risk people will do wrong.).
>>
>> Adapting our projects to provide a framework where companies can
>> easily fit in and edit as a direct consequence, improve the quality of
>> their articles.
>>
>> Companies that have the resources to commit to such things are,
>> usually, big and sometimes old company. Imagine that in a few year,
>> being involved with the Wikimedia projects is so natural for those
>> companies that they release their archives on the Wikimedia Projects.
>> What archives do you ask?
>>
>> Orange, for example, is the former organization in charge of the
>> french telecom. They managed tele

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Anders Wennersten]

Thanks Christophe for your long ,but very good thoughts and experiences 
from paid editing from pro-profit organization.


I fully  support your approach and hope we can put energy, instead of 
just being "against", to elaborate on how to best handle the reality 
that pro-profit organization do paid editing. Should we ask them to be 
be open with their userids  relation to their companies/organizations 
for example, which I think is the (only) wish we should have (and paid 
editors from GLAM already do this) .



Anders




Christophe Henner skrev 2014-01-10 13:34:

Hi everyone,

I'll try to elaborate on this topic :)

First of all, in 2011 in Haifa I did a first talk about companies and
Wikipedia. I did that because I was making a "study" (emphasis on the
" as I'm not keen to say it's a study and more of a detailed
observation) of the state of the articles of the top 40 french
companies.

During that talk I explained how I believe companies could help us
improve our projects. I won't get too much into that as, since then,
the debate evolved from "companies editing Wikipedia" to "Paid editing
is evil".

This year at Wikimania I gave two talks about this very topic, one
about how third party organizations can help us and the second on a
framework to have editing.

Of course, as usual, some people were "against it".

But how can we, as a community, be against "paid editing" on one hand
when on the other hand we seek "paid editing" from GLAMs, researchers
from state organizations, etc.

The question whether we allow, or not, paid editing is non-existent.
Paid editing is allowed, we already allowed it, we even support it;

Now, the question about "paid advocacy". Again, one of our core
principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
they're paid or not, is not relevant.

So, to me, the "paid foobar" question is not the one in debate here.
The one we're actually debating about is "do we want for profit
organization to edit Wikipedia".

So yes, paid organizations have an interest in editing Wikipedia, but
just as much as GLAMs have an interest in editing our projects. In
fact, when Wikimedian meets GLAMs one of the key arguments is "look at
(pick past project that got great coverage such as the bundesarchives,
British Museum, etc)". We show them they have an interest in
committing resources, both financial and human, to improve Wikimedia
projects.

So the "they have an interest in editing" isn't an argument in the
end, as, of course a lot of editors have an interest in editing. And
we're using it. When we think or work on how researchers valorize
their edits in their cursus, those researchers have an interest in
editing Wikipedia.

So, really what is that people working for a company have that makes
it so we have to ban them to edit? If we already have people paid to
edit, if we have people with interests (henceforth some sort of COI),
what do they have the others don't?

Now, why do I strongly believe we should encourage companies to edit Wikipedia.

First of all, as I said some years ago I evaluated the quality of
company articles on the French Wikipedia. Most of them were crap.
Either outdated, incomplete or with wrong information, all those
articles were poor; And we're talking about the top 40 french
companies, such as Orange, L'Oréal, Renault, BNP, etc.

The volunteer community isn't keen to improve and maintain those
articles. Companies are willing to do it. So we prefer to have poor
articles instead of good ones because there's a risk companies will
act wrongfully (I hope I'm not the only one to see the irony in this
situation where we prefer to ban editors because there's a risk
they'll do wrong. We should do that for all the projects, Close them
to editing because there's a risk people will do wrong.).

Adapting our projects to provide a framework where companies can
easily fit in and edit as a direct consequence, improve the quality of
their articles.

Companies that have the resources to commit to such things are,
usually, big and sometimes old company. Imagine that in a few year,
being involved with the Wikimedia projects is so natural for those
companies that they release their archives on the Wikimedia Projects.
What archives do you ask?

Orange, for example, is the former organization in charge of the
french telecom. They managed telephone for a very long time and have a
long history in R&D. Their archives must be astounding. Containing
documents, pictures and videos about telecomunication that should be
awesome. That are part of our history.
Right now, those archives are dusting in some building. And in few
years they might disappear.
Our stance, being so opposed to companies making the first step
(editing) prevent companies to go the next step, release. And in fact,
indirectly, we're preventing knowledge to be freed. Awesome.

Lastly, those companies have huge R&D budgets and employ thousands of
researchers and engineers. Imagine a company that employs 1 000
researchers. And 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Ting Chen]

Hello dear all,

I would like to be more cautious about the difference between the "good" 
paid editing and the "bad" paid advocacy.


There are two reasons why I don't want to separate in this way.

First of there is no clear boundary between the "good" and "bad" like 
black and white. There is a gradient of grey between the two. And that 
gradient is not a narrow one but a very broad one. And it depends from 
the perspective of the people who look upon the matter. For one maybe a 
behavior is the dark white but for the other one it may be a bright black.


Second I want to especially respond to the idea that Erik brought up: an 
organization that hire people to write qualified articles. I wrote in 
the other mail that I believe paid editing changes the collaboratory 
nature of our projects but did not really elaborate on why I think so. I 
want to do this now. Let me construct an example to emphasize why I 
think so. I will now take an example which leaves almost no room for 
interpretation about black and white: the theoretical physics. Let's say 
there is a charitable non-profit organization that hires reknowned 
theoretical physicists to write 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 so 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 becomes a model that many 
follow, I feel it will largely change the composition of our volunteers 
community and how the project will look like. This is basically an 
approach that the Nupedia tried at the beginning. It didn't work that 
time. Meanwhile Wikipedia gains such a reputation that the model may 
work. But I personally don't find the idea sexy.


Greetings
Ting

Am 09.01.2014 03:22, schrieb MZMcBride:

Frank Schulenburg wrote:

[...] it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the
editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.

No.

Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
important point.

Suggested reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ
https://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=25830

N.B. an example of paid editing that few would likely have an issue with
in the first link and Sue's careful and correct wording in the second link.

If we're going to have such a fine distinction, we should probably better
document it to avoid misunderstandings.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Christophe Henner]

Hi everyone,

I'll try to elaborate on this topic :)

First of all, in 2011 in Haifa I did a first talk about companies and
Wikipedia. I did that because I was making a "study" (emphasis on the
" as I'm not keen to say it's a study and more of a detailed
observation) of the state of the articles of the top 40 french
companies.

During that talk I explained how I believe companies could help us
improve our projects. I won't get too much into that as, since then,
the debate evolved from "companies editing Wikipedia" to "Paid editing
is evil".

This year at Wikimania I gave two talks about this very topic, one
about how third party organizations can help us and the second on a
framework to have editing.

Of course, as usual, some people were "against it".

But how can we, as a community, be against "paid editing" on one hand
when on the other hand we seek "paid editing" from GLAMs, researchers
from state organizations, etc.

The question whether we allow, or not, paid editing is non-existent.
Paid editing is allowed, we already allowed it, we even support it;

Now, the question about "paid advocacy". Again, one of our core
principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
they're paid or not, is not relevant.

So, to me, the "paid foobar" question is not the one in debate here.
The one we're actually debating about is "do we want for profit
organization to edit Wikipedia".

So yes, paid organizations have an interest in editing Wikipedia, but
just as much as GLAMs have an interest in editing our projects. In
fact, when Wikimedian meets GLAMs one of the key arguments is "look at
(pick past project that got great coverage such as the bundesarchives,
British Museum, etc)". We show them they have an interest in
committing resources, both financial and human, to improve Wikimedia
projects.

So the "they have an interest in editing" isn't an argument in the
end, as, of course a lot of editors have an interest in editing. And
we're using it. When we think or work on how researchers valorize
their edits in their cursus, those researchers have an interest in
editing Wikipedia.

So, really what is that people working for a company have that makes
it so we have to ban them to edit? If we already have people paid to
edit, if we have people with interests (henceforth some sort of COI),
what do they have the others don't?

Now, why do I strongly believe we should encourage companies to edit Wikipedia.

First of all, as I said some years ago I evaluated the quality of
company articles on the French Wikipedia. Most of them were crap.
Either outdated, incomplete or with wrong information, all those
articles were poor; And we're talking about the top 40 french
companies, such as Orange, L'Oréal, Renault, BNP, etc.

The volunteer community isn't keen to improve and maintain those
articles. Companies are willing to do it. So we prefer to have poor
articles instead of good ones because there's a risk companies will
act wrongfully (I hope I'm not the only one to see the irony in this
situation where we prefer to ban editors because there's a risk
they'll do wrong. We should do that for all the projects, Close them
to editing because there's a risk people will do wrong.).

Adapting our projects to provide a framework where companies can
easily fit in and edit as a direct consequence, improve the quality of
their articles.

Companies that have the resources to commit to such things are,
usually, big and sometimes old company. Imagine that in a few year,
being involved with the Wikimedia projects is so natural for those
companies that they release their archives on the Wikimedia Projects.
What archives do you ask?

Orange, for example, is the former organization in charge of the
french telecom. They managed telephone for a very long time and have a
long history in R&D. Their archives must be astounding. Containing
documents, pictures and videos about telecomunication that should be
awesome. That are part of our history.
Right now, those archives are dusting in some building. And in few
years they might disappear.
Our stance, being so opposed to companies making the first step
(editing) prevent companies to go the next step, release. And in fact,
indirectly, we're preventing knowledge to be freed. Awesome.

Lastly, those companies have huge R&D budgets and employ thousands of
researchers and engineers. Imagine a company that employs 1 000
researchers. And imagine that company to do 2 things:
1/ that a company, as part of its CSR politic, says they commit 1 day
per year per researcher to improve one article. And to provide to
those researchers a one day training session about Wikipedia. This
means 1 000 days of editing from specialized researchers and 1 000
researchers evangelized and trained to edit.
2/ that this company would commit 0.0001% of it's R&D global budget to
open a Q&A desk so wikimedians could ask their researchers for
bibliography or proof reading articles

Those things are not wild dreams, they could de

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Erlend Bjørtvedt]

I agree with you, Dariusz.

We have discussed this at length in the community, and at Wikipedia Academy
in Oslo in december.

There is minimal support of a ban of paid editing. One thing is the fact
that we have both Wikipedians in Residence and editing scholarships with
GLAM institutions. It is naive to believe that cultural institutions like
museums, etc, are not commercial. I am myself among those receiving USD
1.500 from the Directorate of Cultural Heritage to write about 19th century
trappers' huts at Spitsbergen. Commercial? Probably not. Paid editing?
Definitely.

The debate among admins and at the Academy last month, revealed more or
less consensus along several lines of thought.

1) A ban of paid editing is illusionary and impractible, and will just
force paid editors "underground"
2) A ban will deprive us of invaluable expertise on a wide array of
subjects that would otherwise not be covered
3) Guidelines and 5 pillars take presedence over COI anyway, judge people
by what they do, and not who they are.
4) In-house employee editing is not only tolerated, but quite common at
no-wiki.
5) The line runs at paid advocacy = third-party for-pay editing for a
commercial customer, or for-pay POV editing.

During the discussion, it appeared that a large proportion of the admins
and bureaucrats who joined the discussion, had edited the articles about
their employers. Most were aware of the COI potential involved, but
asserted being able to write  objectively even about an employer.

Cheers,
Erlend Bjørtvedt
Norway


2014/1/9 Dariusz Jemielniak 

> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but the question is how to enable such a system. If the rules for
> >  paid editors were to be very strict - many paid editors would have
> > still decide to do it in secrecy anyway,
>
>
> oh, but there will ALWAYS be those lurking in the shadows. However,
> currently we frown upon edits which are according to the rules just as much
> as upon those which cross the line. I think it would be good to make and
> explicit, ostensive bright line, like Jimbo suggested - I just think the
> line should be elsewhere.
>
> Paid editing, when done according to the rules, and when subjected to
> transparent community control, is definitely better than a system in which
> paid editors are, in fact, motivated NOT TO reveal their affiliations.
>
> best,
>
> dariusz "pundit"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
*Erlend Bjørtvedt*
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
 http://no.wikimedia.org 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> Yes, but the question is how to enable such a system. If the rules for
>  paid editors were to be very strict - many paid editors would have
> still decide to do it in secrecy anyway,


oh, but there will ALWAYS be those lurking in the shadows. However,
currently we frown upon edits which are according to the rules just as much
as upon those which cross the line. I think it would be good to make and
explicit, ostensive bright line, like Jimbo suggested - I just think the
line should be elsewhere.

Paid editing, when done according to the rules, and when subjected to
transparent community control, is definitely better than a system in which
paid editors are, in fact, motivated NOT TO reveal their affiliations.

best,

dariusz "pundit"
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Frank Schulenburg]

Thank you for highlighting something I should have clarified better in my post, 
MZMcBride. That sentence should have read "paid advocacy editing" in line with 
Sue's blog post that you referenced. 

We continue to support the important work Sarah and others have done in the 
GLAM sector through projects like Wikipedians in Residence. 

Frank 


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:22 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
Frank Schulenburg wrote:
>[...] it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the
>editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.

No.

Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
important point.

Suggested reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ
https://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=25830

N.B. an example of paid editing that few would likely have an issue with
in the first link and Sue's careful and correct wording in the second link.

If we're going to have such a fine distinction, we should probably better
document it to avoid misunderstandings.

MZMcBride


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Russavia]

Tomasz,

As has been said elsewhere, ""No registration required," "we respect your
privacy," and "no paid editing" are fundamentally incompatible."

The only way that it would be possible for a system as you describe to
exist, the following would need to be true :

1) No more IP editing -- most COI editing exists using IPs
2) No more anonymous editing -- having real names being used for account
names would indeed go towards putting a halt to undeclared editing
3) Compulsory to declare any COI -- this is currently the case on
some projects, but the conditions are such that this is not always followed

The very business model that Wikipedia follows makes it impossible
to enable any system where COI editing can either be eliminated or can
exist without issue. Until that model changes, this will always be an issue.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Tomasz Ganicz]

2014/1/9 Dariusz Jemielniak :
> I totally agree with MZMcBride and Erik. It also depends and what the money
> go for. If somebody is paid to bend the rules or use their privileged role,
> it is an obvious problem. If somebody is paid a compensation for the costs
> incurred in collecting materials (as sometimes is the case with scanners,
> photos, etc.), it obviously isn't. And the area between is grey and
> undefined.
>
> As you possibly know, I believe that outright forbidding all paid editing
> results in a situation when people still do it, but in secrecy. This is not
> good for us, as it increases the amount of work needed to eradicate such
> edits.
>
> I think that we should allow paid edits under certain conditions (although
> obviously not allow paid advocacy), when all encyclopedic standards are
> fulfilled, but require full transparency and disclosure, to allow better
> tracking and evaluation of such edits. I also believe that transparency and
> disclosure of even potential COI is crucial (and unfortunately impossible
> under current rules).
>

Yes, but the question is how to enable such a system. If the rules for
paid editors were to be very strict - many paid editors would have
still decide to do it in secrecy anyway, as it would have been simply
easier for them. It might be like with infamous "registered lobbyst"
system in Polish Parliament. Since  "registered lobbyst" system was
enabled 12 years ago in Polish Parliament only 6 people decided to
register, while all other lobbysts still act in secrecy :-)

System in German Wikipedia registers institutional/corporal editors -
who for sure join the Wikipedia in order to support interest of their
institutions/corporations. One can still do it following the Wikipedia
rules - for example remove unsourced bias, keep pages updated, fix
basic facts, such as the name of CEO etc.  And - in the same time one
can still have accounts for doing evil things - sockpuppeting in
disucssions and votes, forcing obvious bias etc...






-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Anders Wennersten]

Being active on a smaller community I am rather surprised of this 
discussion, which I believe is a privilege that only the biggest version 
can have. Being on a small, we are positive to any editing that improves 
the value and quality. As long it being done within the framework


WMSE actively encourage our old heritage instituion to let their 
employees write articles on runestones etc as part of their paid 
employment. The community is very positive to the publishing companies 
who write excellent articles on the authors they publish books from. We 
accept that most articles of organizations and companies are written by 
persons employed by these. Here we have to work with them to get the 
fluff and promotion out of the articles, but see this as part of getting 
valuable content


We are now also looking into how to get most value of the new techniques 
being introduced, Wikidata, Wikimaps, new mediawiki sw. And here we find 
that we probably have to build up "platforms" of software (templates, 
modules, bots etc) for different subject areas (like geographic entities 
in Sweden, painting etc).  And again being a small community, it is 
quite possible we find we can not develop these technical complicated 
software without help of paid employees, we are just too few volunteers 
with top technical expertise competence



Anders



Dariusz Jemielniak skrev 2014-01-09 09:22:

I totally agree with MZMcBride and Erik. It also depends and what the money
go for. If somebody is paid to bend the rules or use their privileged role,
it is an obvious problem. If somebody is paid a compensation for the costs
incurred in collecting materials (as sometimes is the case with scanners,
photos, etc.), it obviously isn't. And the area between is grey and
undefined.

As you possibly know, I believe that outright forbidding all paid editing
results in a situation when people still do it, but in secrecy. This is not
good for us, as it increases the amount of work needed to eradicate such
edits.

I think that we should allow paid edits under certain conditions (although
obviously not allow paid advocacy), when all encyclopedic standards are
fulfilled, but require full transparency and disclosure, to allow better
tracking and evaluation of such edits. I also believe that transparency and
disclosure of even potential COI is crucial (and unfortunately impossible
under current rules).

best,

dariusz "pundit"


On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:22 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

(Responding just on the general issue, not on the specific case.)


Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
important point.

I agree it's an important distinction. I personally think it could be
worthwhile to think about a separate non-profit organization which
receives payments and manages contracts to systematically expand
Wikipedia coverage, with payment entirely or largely decoupled from
specific articles (at most coupled to specific domains) and the
organization's policies being developed transparently in partnership
with the community. I suspect such an org could receive significant
grants and public support in its own right.

Supporting free content isn't evil - there's stuff like

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1699256938/the-vanamo-online-game-museum
which is totally awesome. It's COI and disclosure issues that raise
red flags, and more significant violations of policies that sometimes
go along with that.

It's been suggested many times through the years that WMF should
directly pay editors in some way. I don't think that's a good idea,
though I would like to see more grants in support of expenses related
to article writing (there are quite a few programs around that
already, many of them chapter-run).

*dims lights, stirs logs in fireplace*

Back in the early years, I had a little statement on my userpage
encouraging people to donate money to me if they liked my work and
wanted me to do more on Wikipedia. (Nobody took me up on it, of
course. Cheap bastards.) This was at a time when a lot of us online
community nerds were thinking about donation-based funding models for
communities. PayPal was just becoming a really big deal back then,
because it suddenly made these early community funding experiments
possible. Blender, Penny Arcade, Kuro5hin and others were among the
true pioneers of what's now called crowdfunding.

Axel Boldt deserves credit for this experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiMoney . I still have a
WikiMoney bank balance of ψ18. Maybe I can convert it to a
cryptocurrency one day. :)

I'd love to see more experiments that are conducted in full awareness
of the ethical issues involved, both with funding models for free
content, and with other incentive structures. WikiMoney was actually
quite popular for a short while, considering how much of a pain it was
to actually administer!

Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, W

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

I totally agree with MZMcBride and Erik. It also depends and what the money
go for. If somebody is paid to bend the rules or use their privileged role,
it is an obvious problem. If somebody is paid a compensation for the costs
incurred in collecting materials (as sometimes is the case with scanners,
photos, etc.), it obviously isn't. And the area between is grey and
undefined.

As you possibly know, I believe that outright forbidding all paid editing
results in a situation when people still do it, but in secrecy. This is not
good for us, as it increases the amount of work needed to eradicate such
edits.

I think that we should allow paid edits under certain conditions (although
obviously not allow paid advocacy), when all encyclopedic standards are
fulfilled, but require full transparency and disclosure, to allow better
tracking and evaluation of such edits. I also believe that transparency and
disclosure of even potential COI is crucial (and unfortunately impossible
under current rules).

best,

dariusz "pundit"


On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:22 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> (Responding just on the general issue, not on the specific case.)
>
> > Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
> > important point.
>
> I agree it's an important distinction. I personally think it could be
> worthwhile to think about a separate non-profit organization which
> receives payments and manages contracts to systematically expand
> Wikipedia coverage, with payment entirely or largely decoupled from
> specific articles (at most coupled to specific domains) and the
> organization's policies being developed transparently in partnership
> with the community. I suspect such an org could receive significant
> grants and public support in its own right.
>
> Supporting free content isn't evil - there's stuff like
>
> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1699256938/the-vanamo-online-game-museum
> which is totally awesome. It's COI and disclosure issues that raise
> red flags, and more significant violations of policies that sometimes
> go along with that.
>
> It's been suggested many times through the years that WMF should
> directly pay editors in some way. I don't think that's a good idea,
> though I would like to see more grants in support of expenses related
> to article writing (there are quite a few programs around that
> already, many of them chapter-run).
>
> *dims lights, stirs logs in fireplace*
>
> Back in the early years, I had a little statement on my userpage
> encouraging people to donate money to me if they liked my work and
> wanted me to do more on Wikipedia. (Nobody took me up on it, of
> course. Cheap bastards.) This was at a time when a lot of us online
> community nerds were thinking about donation-based funding models for
> communities. PayPal was just becoming a really big deal back then,
> because it suddenly made these early community funding experiments
> possible. Blender, Penny Arcade, Kuro5hin and others were among the
> true pioneers of what's now called crowdfunding.
>
> Axel Boldt deserves credit for this experiment:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiMoney . I still have a
> WikiMoney bank balance of ψ18. Maybe I can convert it to a
> cryptocurrency one day. :)
>
> I'd love to see more experiments that are conducted in full awareness
> of the ethical issues involved, both with funding models for free
> content, and with other incentive structures. WikiMoney was actually
> quite popular for a short while, considering how much of a pain it was
> to actually administer!
>
> Erik
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

__
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:22 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

(Responding just on the general issue, not on the specific case.)

> Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
> important point.

I agree it's an important distinction. I personally think it could be
worthwhile to think about a separate non-profit organization which
receives payments and manages contracts to systematically expand
Wikipedia coverage, with payment entirely or largely decoupled from
specific articles (at most coupled to specific domains) and the
organization's policies being developed transparently in partnership
with the community. I suspect such an org could receive significant
grants and public support in its own right.

Supporting free content isn't evil - there's stuff like
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1699256938/the-vanamo-online-game-museum
which is totally awesome. It's COI and disclosure issues that raise
red flags, and more significant violations of policies that sometimes
go along with that.

It's been suggested many times through the years that WMF should
directly pay editors in some way. I don't think that's a good idea,
though I would like to see more grants in support of expenses related
to article writing (there are quite a few programs around that
already, many of them chapter-run).

*dims lights, stirs logs in fireplace*

Back in the early years, I had a little statement on my userpage
encouraging people to donate money to me if they liked my work and
wanted me to do more on Wikipedia. (Nobody took me up on it, of
course. Cheap bastards.) This was at a time when a lot of us online
community nerds were thinking about donation-based funding models for
communities. PayPal was just becoming a really big deal back then,
because it suddenly made these early community funding experiments
possible. Blender, Penny Arcade, Kuro5hin and others were among the
true pioneers of what's now called crowdfunding.

Axel Boldt deserves credit for this experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiMoney . I still have a
WikiMoney bank balance of ψ18. Maybe I can convert it to a
cryptocurrency one day. :)

I'd love to see more experiments that are conducted in full awareness
of the ethical issues involved, both with funding models for free
content, and with other incentive structures. WikiMoney was actually
quite popular for a short while, considering how much of a pain it was
to actually administer!

Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Liam Wyatt]

Thank you very much for raising this distinction MZ. It's a very important
one and, in the recriminations about this particular event, I would hate
for the 'baby to get thrown out with the bathwater' by losing this
distinction.

-Liam / Wittylama

wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata


On 9 January 2014 13:22, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Frank Schulenburg wrote:
> >[...] it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the
> >editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> No.
>
> Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
> important point.
>
> Suggested reading:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=25830
>
> N.B. an example of paid editing that few would likely have an issue with
> in the first link and Sue's careful and correct wording in the second link.
>
> If we're going to have such a fine distinction, we should probably better
> document it to avoid misunderstandings.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[MZMcBride]

Frank Schulenburg wrote:
>[...] it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the
>editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.

No.

Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
important point.

Suggested reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ
https://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=25830

N.B. an example of paid editing that few would likely have an issue with
in the first link and Sue's careful and correct wording in the second link.

If we're going to have such a fine distinction, we should probably better
document it to avoid misunderstandings.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,