I loved the healthcare idea, sounded like such a positive thing. Until I
thought about implementation details. Inevitably, there would have to be
some connection to how active the editor was, otherwise we would have to
get healthcare for millions of users. So then, even worse, if someone fell
under the active threshold, I assume health care would be taken away... So
then we'd probably have to deal with awful situations like "Wikipedia cuts
health benefits for editor unable to edit due to health problems".
I don't like poking my head into these dark hypotheticals, but I wanted to
share that the situation is more complicated than at least I thought.
On Friday, February 26, 2016, Florence Devouard <fdevou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 27/02/16 00:37, SarahSV a écrit :
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
>>> However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid
>>> opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those
>>> opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't
>>> to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't;
>>> WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting
>>> in paid editing.
>>> Hi Pete,
>> I didn't intend to start a detailed discussion about paid editing in this
>> thread. I mentioned it only as one of the ways in which the Foundation
>> could help unpaid editors.
>> To address a few issues: the point of suggesting the Foundation as a
>> neutral broker is to remove the paid editor's COI. The editor would have
>> relationship with the people wanting the article, and would not be chosen
>> by them. The brief from the Foundation would be to produce a well-written,
>> reasonably comprehensive, neutral article about X, based on the best
>> sources available. (Someone referred to this as advertising. It would be
>> exactly the opposite.)
>> It needn't be the Foundation that organizes this. A third party might
>> but the danger of a private company doing it is that they would rely on it
>> for profit, and therefore would be sensitive to pressure from companies.
>> The idea of the Foundation as broker is that it would always place the
>> policies above the desires of the client. Foundation involvement struck me
>> as the only way for an editor to be paid for an article without having a
>> I believe someone else suggested in this thread that it could be run the
>> way the Education Program is, as a related but separate body. That would
>> something you would be perfectly placed to lead, Pete, given your
>> experience as consultant, editor, and former Foundation employee.
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.
> Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change
> its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the
> editorial process, which allows to claim WMF is only hosting the content.
> If WMF is somewhat involved in an editorial process which results in
> paying the authors, then WMF might lose the "host" status.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com