Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> The one reason why we would pay it is because the industry that prevents
>  people from finding citations is morally corrupt....

We need randomized anonymous double blind review for anything like this to
be suitable for paid proofreaders.

Frankly, the category selector on
seems like a terrible idea. I have confirmed some real-world abuse brought
about by a passing acquaintance to whom I showed Citation Hunt immediately
selecting a category in which they had an clear self-interest in conflict
with improving the encyclopedia. The industry is corrupt because
most everyone is self-interested unless you build complicated
review machines to try to dilute their self interest.

> Libraries are our friends and in this publishers are our enemy.

The libraries are our friends because (and to the extent that they) they
pay to support the peer review and related systems which form the basis of
the reliable source criteria. The publishers are our enemy because (and
to the extent that they) they parasitically detract from those systems.

If we ever do get a review system suitable for funding, you can look at
doing so as the logical analog of YouTube, Spotify, and the similar
music content libraries adjusting their royalty payment schedules to cover
smaller performing artists, which they could easily do to return to
supporting the pre-mass piracy e.g. 1970s levels of performing artists.
Volunteer editors are to unsigned folk musicians what publishing company
CEOs are to top-40 musicians and their parasitic management. I am happy to
talk about this in greater detail on the Public Policy list.

Best regards,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to