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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 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 >>> [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
