This is the sort of discussion that should be had on-wiki, just to arrive at some clarity about the fundamental issues.
I have raised the topic on Jimbo's talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Replacing_OTRS_with_a_commercial_consultancy_service Andreas On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Thomas Morton <[email protected]>wrote: > On 3 October 2012 12:51, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 3 October 2012 12:26, Thomas Morton <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > (starting a new topic as this is a little wider than the original >> thread, >> > hope that is OK) >> > >> >> I think it is clear that just letting OTRS handle it doesn't >> >> really work and people need more support than just an email address >> >> they can send things to and get back a lecture on Wikipedia policy and >> >> procedure, >> > >> > >> > Well, respectfully I disagree - at least in part. >> > >> > OTRS very often works. It is because of the work of OTRS volunteers >> there >> > aren't more news articles featuring prominent people who have had >> little or >> > no success with Wikipedia! >> >> Sorry, I shouldn't have said it doesn't work. I should have said it >> often doesn't work. It often does, but there are plenty of times when >> it doesn't. Don't forget the large number of cases which don't even >> get as far as someone emailing OTRS because they don't know how to do >> that. >> > > Sure, that's an issue. I see where you are coming from (the Roth issue in > large part stemmed from the fact that they ended up contacting the wrong > place entirely!). > > >> >> >> >> and judging by the number of attempts we see at setting up >> >> for-profit consultancy services for this, it would appear there is a >> >> market. (I think there is probably a market of companies and >> >> individuals that would be happier paying even if they could get the >> >> same thing done for free, just because they feel more confident in a >> >> paid service.) >> > >> > >> > The problem with this approach is that if you enter into a monetary >> > contract with someone they have more expectation of a result. I'm not >> > shouting down the idea outright - but it is much harder to turn around >> to >> > someone and say "I'm sorry, but this content can't be changed" when >> they are >> > paying you to do that... :D >> >> It's a issue, certainly, but as long as you are completely clear about >> what it is you are doing I think it can work. The key would be to have >> an initial meeting where the client explains what it is they want to >> achieve and you tell them whether that is actually within Wikipedia >> policy. If it isn't, then you don't take it any further. You would >> only actually try and get changes made if you think there is a good >> chance of success. (Whether than initial meeting would be chargable or >> not, I don't know - that's a detail to be worked out.) >> > > Yes, I suppose. > > It's not so easy as that, though, speaking as an OTRS regular. One of two > things can happen with regularity; a seemingly innocuous issue gets blown > up by editors for no apparent reason, which leads to dramaz. Or, the > initial concerns appear quite OK, but once you get onboard discussing with > them it turns out they are more complex and fundamental. > > I'm also concerned that the target market consists of mainly two types of > client: > > * One that wants to rewrite large portions of the article > * One that wants very minor issues fixed ("Please correct this logo", "Our > CEO has changed", "that source refers to someone else!") etc. > > Having an upfront meeting with the latter is not worth it, as this will > likely take longer than resolving the issue. And the former represents the > minefield I mentioned. > > I also suspect that the En.Wiki community would reject anyone being able > to do any substantive work on articles under such a scheme. > > >> That sort of thing could be done as well, but I doubt many people want >> to learn how to navigate the minefield that is Wikipedia just in order >> to fix a few errors in an article. They just want to pay someone to >> sort it out. >> > > I am actually thinking along those lines... I'm not talking about editor > recruitment type things. > > But more "hi everyone, these are the Wikipedia policies, and why we have > them" and then let them loose with a room full of editors who can sit and > work through specific issues. With the benefit that everyone is at educated > in at least the rudiments of policy. > > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
