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
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
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
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 Frank
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
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 ed
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
> >con
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
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 Wi
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.
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
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
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 line
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 doe
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.
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 no
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 a
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 advo
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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 usual
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 be
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
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 artic
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 "pa
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
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, corporat
(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
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
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 th
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 issu
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 pai
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
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
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 na
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 shado
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 pr
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
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 (
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 en
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
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 thi
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
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/U
48 matches
Mail list logo
