I agree this is not a black and white issue.

To depend upon a volunteer workforce to chip away at big picture issues --
especially relating to citations (with the idea that they become systemized
and full on integrated with Wikidata in a super user friendly way) -- is
(a) impractical and (b) weakens the potential for innovation, information
gathering, and quality control.

But then again I think there should be rich and deep cultural partnerships
with GLAM and other institutions, even TV networks and other content
creators, that are funded by grants and outreach in an effort to make
Wikipedia less text heavy, less citation lite, and less curated by
hobbyists who drive out experts in their fields.

I am saying this lovingly, of course, as a hobbyist here....

Agree also about how Wikimedia *does* pay many people -- and should
continue to do so in service to the projects. This is the first "dirty
secret" #NotReally I was truly shocked by once I started volunteering and
getting more involved here.

I don't get citation hunt, find it intimidating and is not why I edit
Wikipedia, but I support improving citations 100%.

- Erika

*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>
Secretary, Wikimedia NYC

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:02 AM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >
> ...
> > I categorically oppose paying people for content. Enabling them to create
> > content is different. Citations is content and its quality is relevant
> but
> > only that.
> Why categorically? We already pay hundreds of people for work in support of
> the projects, including reader-facing administrative and content far more
> prominent than citations. We encourage Wikipedian in Residence programs
> where third parties pay for all kinds of content development. The PR
> editing guidelines explicitly recognize that paid content happens anyway,
> we can't control it, but we can offer best practices. We support editing
> assigned as part of academic class requirements.
> What reason is there to flatly rule out paying people to find citations
> before measuring the quality and cost/benefit ratio of doing so with a
> variety of both incentive payment models and managers?
> >  > How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding
> > pilots to
> > have professional researchers do
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en
> > > and a few other main languages?
> > >
> > > It would be great to measure the quality of results of different
> payment
> > > incentive models and rates, but this is not something that the
> Foundation
> > > could do without some risk of breaching the DMCA safe harbor
> provisions,
> > as
> > > far as I can see. Even if I am technically wrong about that, the
> > > appearances would be that it's obvious exertion of what would be
> positive
> > > editorial control, which would still mean a greater likelihood of
> > lawsuits
> > > by disgruntled BLP and corporate subjects who can't win in court but
> can
> > > waste everyone's money.
> > >
> > > But I would rather have multiple measurements administered by different
> > > parties anyway, because there are likely to be large uncontrollable
> > sources
> > > of noise.
> >
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to