Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt  the Foundation
altogether.  It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency. We're
supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting itself
be used as a medium for advertising. It at least  hopes to achieve this by
while not being   evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.

Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people
freely give  us more than enough for our needs,  and can therefore hope to
achieve the positive good of providing objective information on
encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not information that
other organizations want people to read.  We have no need to compromise.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <pute...@mccme.ru>
> wrote:
>
> - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
> > - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates with
> > WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were
> paid
> > arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give up,
> and I
> > was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also had
> very
> > unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose only
> goal
> > was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality,
> > efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if somebody
> > defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the quality
> > loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who is paid
> > (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and have to
> do
> > the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more persistent.
> >
> >
> > ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
> Wikipedia.
> Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded as
> okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about the
> institution that employs them.
>
> But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems because
> of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor being
> more persistent).
>
> Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that want
> articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the
> problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my thinking
> was that it would be better than the current situation.
>
> Sarah​
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



-- 
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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to