On 24 February 2016 at 21:16, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, Sarah, after all of these years I didn't think you'd come up with
> anything that would surprise me. I was wrong, And I'll say that if I was
> going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying qualified translators to
> support smaller projects, and Wikisourcers, and people who may have the
> interest and ability to edit but instead have to work 60 and 70 hour weeks
> on susbsistence wages simply to feed their children. I would have an
> extremely difficult time justifying paying people in large, well-to-do
> countries to edit Wikipedia. I also strongly suspect it would kill the
> donation stream almost entirely once it became known that Wikipedia was no
> longer written by volunteers, but instead was written by paid editors.
(Sorry for the inadvertent early send)
> 24 February 2016 at 21:09, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:20 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com>
>> > And here I thought you were going to suggest giving each editor a pool
>> > of $$ to assign to their favorite skunkworks projects.
>> > If we divide the current WMF budget ($58M) by the current number of
>> > monthly active editors (71K), then take 60% off the top for keeping
>> > the lights on, infrastructure, etc. -- this is a fairly typical
>> > overhead percentage for grants at universities -- we're still left
>> > with $325/editor.
>> > As of January 2016, the English WP had 3,492 editors that the
>> calls "very active," but that's only 100 edits a month.  The core
>> workforce is considerably smaller, and they're the ones who keep the place
>> running by tidying and writing/rewriting articles, creating and
>> various processes and policies, creating templates, and so on.
>> The Foundation could pay that number of workers, especially if it found
>> imaginative ways to do it.
>> For example, it could set up a department that accepts contracts from
>> individuals and groups who want certain articles to be written or
>> rewritten. Instead of paying a PR company, those people would pay the
>> Foundation. The Foundation would maintain a list of excellent editors and
>> would offer the contract to the most appropriate, taking a percentage of
>> the fee for itself.
>> The brief would specify that any article produced must adhere to the core
>> content policies, so there would be no whitewashing, but there would be an
>> effort to be fair. As things stand, unpaid editors have to clean up PR
>> efforts anyway, so they might as well get paid to produce something decent
>> from the start. It might only take a few ethical companies to sign up for
>> the thing to take off.
>>  https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org