Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Andrew Gray]

Not trivially. The toolserver WP1.0 log records the last date the
rating was altered, but this is done by watching the page and logging
changes in a database. There's nothing on the wiki to indicate it in
most cases, though GA/FA ratings are dated.

Incidentally, for context, enwiki ran a "regrade or expand stubs"
contest in December last year. Over a month, it removed
(approximately) 50,000 stubs... which sounds great, and then you
realise that the system still thinks there are 2,420,000 of them :-)

Andrew.

On 27 March 2014 06:02, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> Hoi,
> Do we have a way of indicating that something was graded at a given date ?
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> On 26 March 2014 22:35, Andrew Gray  wrote:
>
>> The WP 1.0 model is pretty good (at least across a sample of a hundred or
>> so articles) but it's quite labour-intensive. It's also very easy to give
>> completely misleading answers, because there's no re-review process - in
>> the bulk of cases, articles get rated once and then never looked at again.
>> So we have stub articles which are 10,000 characters long with diagrams and
>> references and so forth, because no-one ever remembers to re-rate it or
>> indeed because people think it's not their business to.
>>
>> As a result, a recently rated set of articles is a meaningful result, but a
>> selection of already-rated articles isn't - there's simply no way to tell
>> if they're stale.
>>
>> It would be great if this sort of rating was being systematically checked -
>> but at a vague estimate of thirty seconds to scan, grade, and tag,
>> aggregated across all pages on enwiki, that's about fifteen or twenty
>> person-years of work to do it as a once-off, much less a rolling process.
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>> On 25 March 2014 23:35, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>> > Philippe,
>> >
>> > The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia
>> > 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever
>> > published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size
>> > etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure
>> > article quality.
>> >
>> > Pete
>> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality.
>> >> Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we
>> don't
>> >> have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with
>> >> that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers
>> >> into editors but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article
>> >> quality very well.
>> >>
>> >> I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we
>> >> finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this
>> point.
>> >>
>> >> pb
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
>> >> Foundation, Inc.
>> >> T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | phili...@wikimedia.org | :
>> >> @Philippewiki
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when
>> discussing
>> >> > with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
>> >> concern
>> >> > is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking
>> >> > countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary
>> for
>> >> > fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
>> >> volunteers
>> >> > driven rules in the respective language editions.
>> >> >
>> >> > Rupert
>> >> > Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
>> >> m...@anderswennersten.se
>> >> > >:
>> >> >
>> >> > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is
>> up
>> >> > to
>> >> > > the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
>> >> edits
>> >> > > in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words
>> in
>> >> > > various languages and with very different opinions on the subject,
>> it
>> >> > will
>> >> > > be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as
>> >> all
>> >> > is
>> >> > > possible
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the
>> >> > > importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become
>> one
>> >> > area
>> >> > > to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy
>> >> plan
>> >> > >
>> >> > > In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality
>> became
>> >> > > about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who
>> make
>> >> > an
>> >> > > increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead
>> of
>> >> > > "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher
>> quality"
>> >> and
>> >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Gryllida]

Ah. Thanks!

On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, at 2:38, Maggie Dennis wrote:
> Gryllida, the section is here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment/Archives/2014-03-07
> 
> Maggie
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Gryllida  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, at 3:06, Anders Wennersten wrote:
> > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1)
> >
> > I don't see my edit in the final archived version. Namely, the "What to
> > ask to disclose: paid contributions or COI?" section I created. Link
> > provided. I hope someone here can provide insight on where it's gone.
> >
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment&diff=prev&oldid=7694857#What_to_ask_to_disclose:_paid_contributions_or_COI.3F
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Maggie Dennis
> Senior Community Advocate
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Do we have a way of indicating that something was graded at a given date ?
Thanks,
 GerardM


On 26 March 2014 22:35, Andrew Gray  wrote:

> The WP 1.0 model is pretty good (at least across a sample of a hundred or
> so articles) but it's quite labour-intensive. It's also very easy to give
> completely misleading answers, because there's no re-review process - in
> the bulk of cases, articles get rated once and then never looked at again.
> So we have stub articles which are 10,000 characters long with diagrams and
> references and so forth, because no-one ever remembers to re-rate it or
> indeed because people think it's not their business to.
>
> As a result, a recently rated set of articles is a meaningful result, but a
> selection of already-rated articles isn't - there's simply no way to tell
> if they're stale.
>
> It would be great if this sort of rating was being systematically checked -
> but at a vague estimate of thirty seconds to scan, grade, and tag,
> aggregated across all pages on enwiki, that's about fifteen or twenty
> person-years of work to do it as a once-off, much less a rolling process.
>
> Andrew.
>
> On 25 March 2014 23:35, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> > Philippe,
> >
> > The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia
> > 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever
> > published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size
> > etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure
> > article quality.
> >
> > Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette
> > wrote:
> >
> >> During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality.
> >> Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we
> don't
> >> have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with
> >> that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers
> >> into editors but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article
> >> quality very well.
> >>
> >> I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we
> >> finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this
> point.
> >>
> >> pb
> >>
> >>
> >> *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
> >> Foundation, Inc.
> >> T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | phili...@wikimedia.org | :
> >> @Philippewiki
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when
> discussing
> >> > with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
> >> concern
> >> > is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking
> >> > countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary
> for
> >> > fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
> >> volunteers
> >> > driven rules in the respective language editions.
> >> >
> >> > Rupert
> >> > Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
> >> m...@anderswennersten.se
> >> > >:
> >> >
> >> > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is
> up
> >> > to
> >> > > the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
> >> edits
> >> > > in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words
> in
> >> > > various languages and with very different opinions on the subject,
> it
> >> > will
> >> > > be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as
> >> all
> >> > is
> >> > > possible
> >> > >
> >> > > Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the
> >> > > importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
> >> > >
> >> > > I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become
> one
> >> > area
> >> > > to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy
> >> plan
> >> > >
> >> > > In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality
> became
> >> > > about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who
> make
> >> > an
> >> > > increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead
> of
> >> > > "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher
> quality"
> >> and
> >> > > then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
> >> could
> >> > > had been one mean)
> >> > >
> >> > > In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles
> with
> >> > > higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and
> where
> >> > > paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need
> to
> >> > be
> >> > > supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
> >> > >
> >> > > Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
> >> elaborate
> >> > > rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
> >> > getting
> >> > > more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Andrew Gray]

The WP 1.0 model is pretty good (at least across a sample of a hundred or
so articles) but it's quite labour-intensive. It's also very easy to give
completely misleading answers, because there's no re-review process - in
the bulk of cases, articles get rated once and then never looked at again.
So we have stub articles which are 10,000 characters long with diagrams and
references and so forth, because no-one ever remembers to re-rate it or
indeed because people think it's not their business to.

As a result, a recently rated set of articles is a meaningful result, but a
selection of already-rated articles isn't - there's simply no way to tell
if they're stale.

It would be great if this sort of rating was being systematically checked -
but at a vague estimate of thirty seconds to scan, grade, and tag,
aggregated across all pages on enwiki, that's about fifteen or twenty
person-years of work to do it as a once-off, much less a rolling process.

Andrew.

On 25 March 2014 23:35, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> Philippe,
>
> The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia
> 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever
> published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size
> etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure
> article quality.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette
> wrote:
>
>> During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality.
>> Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we
don't
>> have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with
>> that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers
>> into editors but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article
>> quality very well.
>>
>> I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we
>> finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this point.
>>
>> pb
>>
>>
>> *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
>> Foundation, Inc.
>> T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | phili...@wikimedia.org | :
>> @Philippewiki
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when
discussing
>> > with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
>> concern
>> > is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking
>> > countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary
for
>> > fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
>> volunteers
>> > driven rules in the respective language editions.
>> >
>> > Rupert
>> > Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
>> m...@anderswennersten.se
>> > >:
>> >
>> > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is
up
>> > to
>> > > the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
>> edits
>> > > in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in
>> > > various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it
>> > will
>> > > be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as
>> all
>> > is
>> > > possible
>> > >
>> > > Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the
>> > > importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
>> > >
>> > > I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one
>> > area
>> > > to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy
>> plan
>> > >
>> > > In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became
>> > > about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who
make
>> > an
>> > > increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead
of
>> > > "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality"
>> and
>> > > then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
>> could
>> > > had been one mean)
>> > >
>> > > In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles
with
>> > > higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and
where
>> > > paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need
to
>> > be
>> > > supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
>> > >
>> > > Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
>> elaborate
>> > > rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
>> > getting
>> > > more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on
skill
>> > for
>> > > editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher
treshhold
>> > for
>> > > new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to
>> start.
>> > > But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a
>> > "semi-professional
>> > > editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five
>> years -
>> > > more semiprofess

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Pete Forsyth]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Sage Ross wrote:

> That part of Amy Roth's research has not been published except
> on-wiki.[1] There was also a followup study after the Public Policy
> Initiative using the same method, which found found similar
> results.[2]
>

Thanks Sage, [1] is the page I was looking for, and had trouble finding.

>
> It's true that these studies were manual processes that took a huge
> amount of work and wouldn't scale (at least, without some investing in
> tools for easy data generation and collection).


Yes -- the *research that produced* the finding was resource-intensive. But
as Sage says, my point was it's the *results* of the research that have
lasting value.


> But I think Pete's
> point is that these studies show that the widespread Wikipedia 1.0
> scale itself does a decent job of what it is intended to do.
>
> [1] =
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Student_Contributions_to_Wikipedia
> [2] =
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Research/Article_quality/Results
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
> wrote:
> > On 03/25/2014 07:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> >> If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA,
> GA,
> >> etc.) should be used.
>

Exactly. And the question of *exactly how* reliable that system is, is an
important one, and one we are at least part way to answering.

>
> That idea needs to be tempered with a strong caveat: at least for
> enwiki, those processes tend to be highly politized as they are already.
>  Focusing strategy on those is likely to have volatile effects and any
> step in that direction has to be done deliberately and with a great deal
> of caution.

Very good point. (But, not so much caution that we fail to proceed at
all!!!)

While this is true to some degree, if an article *does* make it
> through one of these processes, that's a fairly reliable indicator
> that it's at least pretty decent.


Yes. The value of Amy's research is that we can say that with confidence --
not just as Wikipedians with anecdotal experience.

It is true that her study covered only the US Public Policy topic, and also
I don't think it was ever published by a peer reviewed journal. But it
does, if nothing else, lay out a clear path for future research. Amy also
published her methodology.[3]


> The bigger problem is that the lower
> ratings, between Stub and B-class, are often badly out-of-date.
> 


That is true, but it is also something that can be systematically evaluated
by software. For instance, and automated process could "score" the currency
of a rating by determining when the "class=" parameter was updated, and
summarizing what has happened to the article since (bytes added, number of
references added, sub-articles spun off, number of talk page comments.)
This would of course require further deliberation and design -- but it's a
rich vein to mine.

The nice thing about the Wikipedia 1.0 ratings is that we already have
> all the data, just waiting for someone to do something cool with it.
> The history of this page would be fun to play with:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/OverallArticles
>
> -Sage


OK, a small pet peeve about that table: the "importance" axis is
meaningless when aggregaged. If an an Academy Award winning film was set
partially in Wisconsin, it might be rated "top" importance by WikiProject
Film, but "low" importance by WikiProject Wisconsin. "Importance" in the
abstract is a meaningless term; it's "importance in XYZ context" that
matters. 

-Pete

[3]
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Initiative_Evaluation_and_Research#Analysis_Components
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Maggie Dennis]

Gryllida, the section is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment/Archives/2014-03-07

Maggie


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Gryllida  wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, at 3:06, Anders Wennersten wrote:
> > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1)
>
> I don't see my edit in the final archived version. Namely, the "What to
> ask to disclose: paid contributions or COI?" section I created. Link
> provided. I hope someone here can provide insight on where it's gone.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment&diff=prev&oldid=7694857#What_to_ask_to_disclose:_paid_contributions_or_COI.3F
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Maggie Dennis
Senior Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

MZMcBride, 26/03/2014 01:40:

we shouldn't allow a heavily advertised discussion
alone sway what we feel is important to focus on


I agree. In fact, as said yesterday, the WMF board could well refuse to 
discuss the ToU amendment if they feel it's not worth it.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=7954604
The same holds true for all the many topics some vocal or less vocal 
(groups of) persons ask the WMF board to do something about, of course. 
As long as it's clearly and transparently communicated what was included 
in or excluded from the agenda, there's nothing strange. A collegial 
body must have its own priorities and focus on those.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Sage Ross]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Philippe Beaudette
 wrote:
> I wouldn't know, Pete.  But as I recall, it was a manual process, wasn't
> it?  And therefore quite difficult to scale and/or adapt for some usages?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
>> Philippe,
>>
>> The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia
>> 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever
>> published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size
>> etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure
>> article quality.
>>


That part of Amy Roth's research has not been published except
on-wiki.[1] There was also a followup study after the Public Policy
Initiative using the same method, which found found similar
results.[2]

It's true that these studies were manual processes that took a huge
amount of work and wouldn't scale (at least, without some investing in
tools for easy data generation and collection). But I think Pete's
point is that these studies show that the widespread Wikipedia 1.0
scale itself does a decent job of what it is intended to do.

[1] = https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Student_Contributions_to_Wikipedia
[2] = 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Research/Article_quality/Results

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> On 03/25/2014 07:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>> If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA,
>> etc.) should be used.
>
> That idea needs to be tempered with a strong caveat: at least for
> enwiki, those processes tend to be highly politized as they are already.
>  Focusing strategy on those is likely to have volatile effects and any
> step in that direction has to be done deliberately and with a great deal
> of caution.
>

While this is true to some degree, if an article *does* make it
through one of these processes, that's a fairly reliable indicator
that it's at least pretty decent. The bigger problem is that the lower
ratings, between Stub and B-class, are often badly out-of-date. For
both the process-based ratings (FA, A, GA) and the informally assigned
ones (Stub, Start, C, B), the ratings are probably best thought of as
a very approximate lower bound for quality. (That is, a "B-class"
article might really be GA quality and it just never went through the
process, or a "Stub" might actually have developed well into C-class
territory in the time since its rating was assigned.)

The nice thing about the Wikipedia 1.0 ratings is that we already have
all the data, just waiting for someone to do something cool with it.
The history of this page would be fun to play with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/OverallArticles

-Sage

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Gryllida]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, at 3:06, Anders Wennersten wrote:
> The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1)

I don't see my edit in the final archived version. Namely, the "What to ask to 
disclose: paid contributions or COI?" section I created. Link provided. I hope 
someone here can provide insight on where it's gone.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment&diff=prev&oldid=7694857#What_to_ask_to_disclose:_paid_contributions_or_COI.3F

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[MZMcBride]

Anders Wennersten wrote:
>The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is up
>to the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
>edits in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words
>in various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it
>will be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it
>as all is possible
>
>Stephen LaPorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the
>importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
>
>[...]
>
>[1] 
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment

Hi.

Thanks for starting this thread.

I think it's important to note that the paid contributions amendment
discussion (or perhaps more accurately, the straw poll) was very heavily
advertised, using a banner at the top of Wikimedia wikis for several
weeks that displayed to both logged-in and logged out users (as is
required for a change to the site terms of use). Due to the heavy
advertising, it's no surprise there were several thousand participants,
but that number needs context, of course.

It may or may not be a good use of time and energy to address paid editing
(or rather, paid advocacy) or article quality or any number of other
strategic goals, but we shouldn't allow a heavily advertised discussion
alone sway what we feel is important to focus on, particularly not without
better understanding whether this specific set of self-selected people
(i.e., people who saw the banner and decided to comment) is representative
of the overall Wikimedia community.

I personally agree that measuring and improving the quality of the work on
Wikimedia wikis is important and deserves renewed focus as the next
strategic planning process gets underway. Though as others in this thread
have already noted, it's difficult to measure article (or transcript or
dictionary entry or news story or data item or...) quality. And I'll add
to this that the current Strategic Plan sets a fair number of goals that
likely won't be reached, so we'll need to figure out whether the
expectations and/or the resource allocation needs adjustment.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 03/25/2014 07:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA,
> etc.) should be used.

That idea needs to be tempered with a strong caveat: at least for
enwiki, those processes tend to be highly politized as they are already.
 Focusing strategy on those is likely to have volatile effects and any
step in that direction has to be done deliberately and with a great deal
of caution.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Philippe Beaudette]

Handy link for background:  https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Quality
(quite old and outdated now, but still good).


*Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
 T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
@Philippewiki


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:

> If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA,
> etc.) should be used. It may not be perfect at the individual article
> level, but it does scale well.
> On Mar 26, 2014 6:36 AM, "Pete Forsyth"  wrote:
>
> > Philippe,
> >
> > The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia
> > 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever
> > published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size
> > etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure
> > article quality.
> >
> > Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette
> > wrote:
> >
> > > During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality.
> > > Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we
> > don't
> > > have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it.  AFT actually played
> with
> > > that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert
> readers
> > > into editors but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article
> > > quality very well.
> > >
> > > I'd very much like to see that change.  I had actually hoped, as we
> > > finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this
> point.
> > >
> > > pb
> > >
> > >
> > > *Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
> > > Foundation, Inc.
> > >  T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
> > > @Philippewiki
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when
> > discussing
> > > > with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
> > > concern
> > > > is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking
> > > > countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary
> > for
> > > > fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
> > > volunteers
> > > > driven rules in the respective language editions.
> > > >
> > > > Rupert
> > > > Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
> > > m...@anderswennersten.se
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it
> is
> > up
> > > > to
> > > > > the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
> > > edits
> > > > > in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words
> in
> > > > > various languages and with very different opinions on the subject,
> it
> > > > will
> > > > > be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it
> as
> > > all
> > > > is
> > > > > possible
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the
> > > > > importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become
> one
> > > > area
> > > > > to look when we start the work with the next version of our
> strategy
> > > plan
> > > > >
> > > > > In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality
> became
> > > > > about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who
> > make
> > > > an
> > > > > increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead
> > of
> > > > > "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher
> quality"
> > > and
> > > > > then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
> > > could
> > > > > had been one mean)
> > > > >
> > > > > In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles
> > with
> > > > > higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and
> > where
> > > > > paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then
> need
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
> > > elaborate
> > > > > rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
> > > > getting
> > > > > more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on
> > skill
> > > > for
> > > > > editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher
> > treshhold
> > > > for
> > > > > new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to
> > > start.
> > > > > But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified  a
> > > > "semi-professional
> > > > > editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five
> > > years -
> > > > > more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for n

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[John Mark Vandenberg]

If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA,
etc.) should be used. It may not be perfect at the individual article
level, but it does scale well.
On Mar 26, 2014 6:36 AM, "Pete Forsyth"  wrote:

> Philippe,
>
> The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia
> 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever
> published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size
> etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure
> article quality.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette
> wrote:
>
> > During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality.
> > Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we
> don't
> > have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it.  AFT actually played with
> > that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers
> > into editors but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article
> > quality very well.
> >
> > I'd very much like to see that change.  I had actually hoped, as we
> > finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this point.
> >
> > pb
> >
> >
> > *Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
> > Foundation, Inc.
> >  T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
> > @Philippewiki
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when
> discussing
> > > with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
> > concern
> > > is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking
> > > countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary
> for
> > > fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
> > volunteers
> > > driven rules in the respective language editions.
> > >
> > > Rupert
> > > Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
> > m...@anderswennersten.se
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is
> up
> > > to
> > > > the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
> > edits
> > > > in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in
> > > > various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it
> > > will
> > > > be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as
> > all
> > > is
> > > > possible
> > > >
> > > > Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the
> > > > importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
> > > >
> > > > I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one
> > > area
> > > > to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy
> > plan
> > > >
> > > > In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became
> > > > about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who
> make
> > > an
> > > > increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead
> of
> > > > "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality"
> > and
> > > > then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
> > could
> > > > had been one mean)
> > > >
> > > > In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles
> with
> > > > higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and
> where
> > > > paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need
> to
> > > be
> > > > supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
> > > >
> > > > Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
> > elaborate
> > > > rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
> > > getting
> > > > more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on
> skill
> > > for
> > > > editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher
> treshhold
> > > for
> > > > new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to
> > start.
> > > > But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified  a
> > > "semi-professional
> > > > editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five
> > years -
> > > > more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
> > > >
> > > > Anders
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_
> > > > contributions_amendment
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Philippe Beaudette]

I wouldn't know, Pete.  But as I recall, it was a manual process, wasn't
it?  And therefore quite difficult to scale and/or adapt for some usages?



*Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
 T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
@Philippewiki


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Philippe,
>
> The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia
> 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever
> published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size
> etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure
> article quality.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette
> wrote:
>
> > During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality.
> > Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we
> don't
> > have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it.  AFT actually played with
> > that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers
> > into editors but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article
> > quality very well.
> >
> > I'd very much like to see that change.  I had actually hoped, as we
> > finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this point.
> >
> > pb
> >
> >
> > *Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
> > Foundation, Inc.
> >  T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
> > @Philippewiki
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when
> discussing
> > > with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
> > concern
> > > is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking
> > > countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary
> for
> > > fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
> > volunteers
> > > driven rules in the respective language editions.
> > >
> > > Rupert
> > > Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
> > m...@anderswennersten.se
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is
> up
> > > to
> > > > the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
> > edits
> > > > in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in
> > > > various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it
> > > will
> > > > be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as
> > all
> > > is
> > > > possible
> > > >
> > > > Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the
> > > > importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
> > > >
> > > > I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one
> > > area
> > > > to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy
> > plan
> > > >
> > > > In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became
> > > > about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who
> make
> > > an
> > > > increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead
> of
> > > > "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality"
> > and
> > > > then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
> > could
> > > > had been one mean)
> > > >
> > > > In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles
> with
> > > > higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and
> where
> > > > paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need
> to
> > > be
> > > > supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
> > > >
> > > > Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
> > elaborate
> > > > rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
> > > getting
> > > > more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on
> skill
> > > for
> > > > editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher
> treshhold
> > > for
> > > > new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to
> > start.
> > > > But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified  a
> > > "semi-professional
> > > > editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five
> > years -
> > > > more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
> > > >
> > > > Anders
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_
> > > > contributions_amendment
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Pete Forsyth]

Philippe,

The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia
1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever
published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size
etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure
article quality.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:

> During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality.
> Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we don't
> have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it.  AFT actually played with
> that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers
> into editors but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article
> quality very well.
>
> I'd very much like to see that change.  I had actually hoped, as we
> finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this point.
>
> pb
>
>
> *Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
> Foundation, Inc.
>  T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
> @Philippewiki
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER
> wrote:
>
> > The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when discussing
> > with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
> concern
> > is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking
> > countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary for
> > fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
> volunteers
> > driven rules in the respective language editions.
> >
> > Rupert
> > Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
> m...@anderswennersten.se
> > >:
> >
> > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is up
> > to
> > > the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
> edits
> > > in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in
> > > various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it
> > will
> > > be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as
> all
> > is
> > > possible
> > >
> > > Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the
> > > importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
> > >
> > > I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one
> > area
> > > to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy
> plan
> > >
> > > In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became
> > > about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who make
> > an
> > > increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead of
> > > "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality"
> and
> > > then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
> could
> > > had been one mean)
> > >
> > > In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles with
> > > higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and where
> > > paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need to
> > be
> > > supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
> > >
> > > Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
> elaborate
> > > rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
> > getting
> > > more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on skill
> > for
> > > editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher treshhold
> > for
> > > new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to
> start.
> > > But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified  a
> > "semi-professional
> > > editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five
> years -
> > > more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
> > >
> > > Anders
> > >
> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_
> > > contributions_amendment
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Philippe Beaudette]

During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality.
Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we don't
have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it.  AFT actually played with
that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers
into editors but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article
quality very well.

I'd very much like to see that change.  I had actually hoped, as we
finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this point.

pb


*Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
 T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
@Philippewiki


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER
wrote:

> The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when discussing
> with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main concern
> is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking
> countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary for
> fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to volunteers
> driven rules in the respective language editions.
>
> Rupert
> Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten"  >:
>
> > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is up
> to
> > the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000 edits
> > in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in
> > various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it
> will
> > be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as all
> is
> > possible
> >
> > Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the
> > importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
> >
> > I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one
> area
> > to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy plan
> >
> > In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became
> > about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who make
> an
> > increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead of
> > "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality" and
> > then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors could
> > had been one mean)
> >
> > In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles with
> > higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and where
> > paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need to
> be
> > supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
> >
> > Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more elaborate
> > rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
> getting
> > more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on skill
> for
> > editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher treshhold
> for
> > new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to start.
> > But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified  a
> "semi-professional
> > editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five years -
> > more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
> >
> > Anders
> >
> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_
> > contributions_amendment
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[rupert THURNER]

The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when discussing
with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main concern
is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking
countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary for
fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to volunteers
driven rules in the respective language editions.

Rupert
Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" :

> The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is up to
> the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000 edits
> in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in
> various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it will
> be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as all is
> possible
>
> Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the
> importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
>
> I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one area
> to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy plan
>
> In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became
> about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who make an
> increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead of
> "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality" and
> then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors could
> had been one mean)
>
> In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles with
> higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and where
> paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need to be
> supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
>
> Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more elaborate
> rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is getting
> more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on skill for
> editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher treshhold for
> new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to start.
> But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified  a "semi-professional
> editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five years -
> more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
>
> Anders
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_
> contributions_amendment
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

[Anders Wennersten]

The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is up 
to the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000 
edits in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words 
in various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it 
will be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it 
as all is possible


Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the 
importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree


I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one 
area to look when we start the work with the next version of our 
strategy plan


In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became 
about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who make 
an increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead 
of "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality" 
and then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors 
could had been one mean)


In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles with 
higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and where 
paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need to 
be supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.


Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more 
elaborate rules for qualified editing at the same time the base 
technique is getting more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts 
higher demand on skill for editors). I do not see that this trend 
necessary means higher treshhold for new beginner, as other tools like 
visual editors make it easier to start. But I do beleive the treshhold 
to become a qualified  a "semi-professional editor" IS becoming higher. 
And perhaps the receipt for last five years - more semiprofessional - is 
not a viable option for next five years


Anders

[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,