Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt What is the status of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Knowledge_Graph_with_DeepDive and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/StrepHit:_Wikidata_Statements_Validation_via_References ? There have been no updates on either at all

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

DMCA + BLP = FUD? Pardon my brevity, for my time is best spent adding uncited claims via sockpuppets so that I can get some money once the hunt begins. Il 22/04/2016 18:54, James Salsman ha scritto: How do people feel about a few of the larger the Chapters funding pilots to have professional

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

Hoi, The one reason why we would pay it is because the industry that prevents people from finding citations is morally corrupt. As an industry it prevents researchers from finding sources about their topic of interest. The result is that much research is done over and over again resulting in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:54 AM, James Salsman wrote: > 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? > ​Might I suggest you approach

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

> > > Gerard Meijssen wrote: Once we, as in the WMF, start paying for content there is no reasonable > argument to pay specific work and not pay for other specific work. I am suggesting a limited experiment by the diverse chapters, not the WMF proper. I don't think it follows that success would

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

Hoi, Once we, as in the WMF, start paying for content there is no reasonable argument to pay specific work and not pay for other specific work. Why should we pay for additional content in English and not pay for content in other languages? Research is done that may lead to the use of Wikidata for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

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)

[Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

> > 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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

Hoi, 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. Thanks, GerardM On 22 April 2016 at 18:54, James Salsman wrote: > How do people feel about a few of the

[Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

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