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 selecto
pHit:_Wikidata_Statements_Validation_via_References/Midpoint
you can find all the updates about the project there.
Best,
Marco
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 10:00:43 -0600
From: James Salsman
To: "wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org"
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt
What is the s
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
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
waste
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 some of these larger
>
>
> 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
On Apr 23, 2016 4:43 PM, "Gerard Meijssen"
wrote:
>
> 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.
Sure there is. Prioritization based on movement goals, feasibility,
achieving parity in underse
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
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) weake
>
> 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, includ
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 larger the Chapters
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 no
12 matches
Mail list logo
