Le 2013-03-30 09:54, Craig Franklin a écrit :
It comes down to asking what the purpose of the Foundation and a
project
like Wikipedia is. Is it to produce a free source of knowledge, or
is to
promote volunteerism? If it's possible to build a better
encyclopædia by
encouraging paid editing
Le 2013-03-30 20:51, Steven Walling a écrit :
There's actually plenty of even more neutral ways to do this IMO, and
none
of them have anything to do with promoting the donor or paid editing.
For
example: a simple count of how many readers donated in support of
this
article. This article
to not allow sponsorship of articles.
WSC
--
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:04:35 -0700
From: Mono monom...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Adopt a page
Message
Hmm. Once again, I largely agree with WSC. Unless I'm missing something, this
idea is largely about fundraising, and I think it could introduce more problems
than it solves.
The evidence that I've seen suggest that WMF is very successful at fundraising,
but has ongoing difficulties with making
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I've just seen an OTRS ticket asking why isn't Wikipedia giving its
pages for adoption (like when you adopt a page and your name ends up
on its cage or something like that). I've moved the ticket to the
donations queue,
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 2:46 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Thirdly there is the vexed issue of paid editing, here the important thing
is to avoid COI.
In my personal opinion it's as important to avoid even the *appearance* of
COI, as that can be just as damaging to
Guys, I think you're reading more into it than it is. When you're adopting
an animal you don't get to decide what and how much it gets to eat.
Similarly adopting a wiki page wouldn't mean you pay for having a say on
the content. At the bottom end of the reward scale you could get a badge
you
It comes down to asking what the purpose of the Foundation and a project
like Wikipedia is. Is it to produce a free source of knowledge, or is to
promote volunteerism? If it's possible to build a better encyclopædia by
encouraging paid editing or allowing for-profit entities to sponsor a
As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea, but it is hard
to define and put a price on it. I would guess you would charge more
to sponsor high-profile articles, the way a parks commission can
advertise donor names on park benches, where the more prominently
placed ones get a higher
On Mar 30, 2013 9:46 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea,
It is worth remembering that we don't actually have a problem with
fundraising. We can raise enormous amounts of money incredibly easily by
putting banners on the fifth most
: [Wikimedia-l] Adopt a page
As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea, but it is hard
to define and put a price on it. I would guess you would charge more
to sponsor high-profile articles, the way a parks commission can
advertise donor names on park benches, where the more prominently
- Original Message - From: Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com
To: cfrank...@halonetwork.net; Wikimedia Mailing List
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Adopt a page
As a fundraising tactic
There's a little of that which goes on currently (I mean above-board,
not counting anything that may happen unofficially). The most common
case is that a cultural organization, such as a museum, provides funds
for a Wikipedian in residence who is brought in to do a mixture of
training other
On Mar 30, 2013 10:28 PM, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
There's a little of that which goes on currently (I mean above-board, not
counting anything that may happen unofficially). The most common case is
that a cultural organization, such as a museum, provides funds for a
Wikipedian in
-l] Adopt a page
On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Strainu wrote:
Guys, I think you're reading more into it than it is. When you're
adopting
an animal you don't get to decide what and how much it gets to eat.
Similarly adopting a wiki page wouldn't mean you pay for having a say on
the content
Replying off my phone here, so no signature or lengthy response...
For Wikipedians in Residence, it varies I believe. I've seen some WiRs edit
articles directly, whereas others, including WMUK's WiRs, don't edit
articles about their institution at all, instead focussing on training,
digitisation,
Where would their name go? If it's anywhere more prominent than the names
of the volunteers that wrote the article (which anything on the article
page itself would be) then it doesn't really seem fair...
On Mar 29, 2013 10:37 PM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I've just seen an OTRS
Because we've decided that [[WP:Ownership of articles]] is wrong, and
wronger if there's financial sponsorship involved.
On 29 March 2013 22:36, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I've just seen an OTRS ticket asking why isn't Wikipedia giving its
pages for adoption (like when you adopt
Yes, but it might be nice if we could let people pay trusted editors to
improve articles (without a COI and with a NPOV) that normally wouldn't get
attention.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hkwrote:
Because we've decided that [[WP:Ownership of articles]] is
On Mar 30, 2013 12:55 AM, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but it might be nice if we could let people pay trusted editors to
improve articles (without a COI and with a NPOV) that normally wouldn't
get
attention.
Would that be nice? I think that would be very harmful...
How so?
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 30, 2013 12:55 AM, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but it might be nice if we could let people pay trusted editors to
improve articles (without a COI and with a NPOV) that normally wouldn't
On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote:
How so?
It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
written encyclopedia.
You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid editors.
There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those
It's a weird dichotomy.
I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic
area. I could easily have spent several grand.
Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture
But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge
benefit.
And,
23 matches
Mail list logo
