Andrew sums up the situation in the UK very well. For some Wikimedian in
Residence positions they are entirely funded by the chapter. Others involve
funding from both the institution and the chapter. A third model involves a
residency being funded by a third party. For example, there's a residency
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a
Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the
Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum),
Wikipedians-in-Residence are
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a
Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the
On 12 January 2014 02:58, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Craig Franklin wrote:
I think it's actually foolish to try and split hairs over what is
acceptable paid editing and what is unacceptable paid editing. The facts
of the matter are that paid editing is taking place right now, and it
Detail ;-). Probably the language of the project that the paid edits are
occurring on, I'd imagine.
Cheers,
Craig
On 12 January 2014 21:58, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
In what language does this disclosure have to be ??
Thanks,
Gerard
On 12 January 2014
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Craig Franklin
cfrank...@halonetwork.netwrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of a centralised disclosure list where
people can say My name is X, my user account is Y, and I am doing paid
editing on article Z. Such a thing would of course invite a lot
It varies. Some are essentially unfunded or self-funded; some are
institutionally funded; some are funded by chapter-sourced grants;
some are funded by third parties (I was!); and a mix of #2 and #3 is
not uncommon.
Andrew.
On 12 January 2014 10:06, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
Hello Peter,
I see the following two possibilities:
Either the paid editing brings a higher quality and thus by that quality
imposes itself as an authority and thus discourage further unqualified
editing
Or the paid
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
I want to open up the discussion even wider. The way things are stated is
that paid editing is not acceptable.
I'm not sure what you mean.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Paid_editing is still a very rough draft,
but the first sentence is currently:
---
Paid editing is
I've looked at a great deal of detectable paid editing on the english WP.
Only about 10% of it is of acceptable quality, with respect to both
notability
of subject and quality of contents. On similar topics, the quality of
volunteer editing is considerably better--at least 30% is acceptable.
Hi everyone,
I'll try to elaborate on this topic :)
First of all, in 2011 in Haifa I did a first talk about companies and
Wikipedia. I did that because I was making a study (emphasis on the
as I'm not keen to say it's a study and more of a detailed
observation) of the state of the articles of
Hello dear all,
I would like to be more cautious about the difference between the good
paid editing and the bad paid advocacy.
There are two reasons why I don't want to separate in this way.
First of there is no clear boundary between the good and bad like
black and white. There is a
Thanks Christophe for your long ,but very good thoughts and experiences
from paid editing from pro-profit organization.
I fully support your approach and hope we can put energy, instead of
just being against, to elaborate on how to best handle the reality
that pro-profit organization do paid
A museum is a commercial entity. They live from ticket incomes from
customers. Universities live from tuition fees from students who freely
choose which university is most attractive to them.
The difference between these institutions editing, and a private railway
company when it comes to coi
But even they sell souvenires and books..
Den 10. jan. 2014 16:05 skrev Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info følgende:
On 10/01/2014 15:01, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
A museum is a commercial entity. They live from ticket incomes from
customers.
Not all museum charges people entry... ;)
--
(Note these are my own personal views and in no way reflect any views of
the WMF or anyone else)
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Christophe Henner
christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, the question about paid advocacy. Again, one of our core
principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push
Ting and Christophe,
Glad to hear we are moving forward on finding more sophisticated ways of
thinking about paid editing. At least for the English Wikipedians I've
talked to, many are pleasantly surprised that the European editions are
able to find a cooperative relationship with paid, corporate
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
Wikipedia articles. So they pay 10.000 Dollar to Bryce DeWitt (I know, he is
dead, I just don't want to name any living people) to write about field
theory, or John Wheeler to write about general relativity, and so on and so
A track about that \o/
It took me years to have 2 sessions and they were the only 2 tackling
that issue last year :)
--
Christophe
On 10 January 2014 16:17, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
Ting and Christophe,
Glad to hear we are moving forward on finding more sophisticated ways of
Hi,
I agree it's an important distinction. I personally think it could be
worthwhile to think about a separate non-profit organization which
receives payments and manages contracts to systematically expand
Wikipedia coverage, with payment entirely or largely decoupled from
specific articles
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On the other hand, a paid advocate may perhaps be more concerning from a
community standpoint because it's likely that the paid advocate is going to
have more time and resources to devote to inserting POV content
Arne Klempert, 10/01/2014 17:51:
I've heard that before from Wikipedians. However, it does not match
with what communication professionals keep telling me. Even larger
companies with solid communication departments are usually not in a
place to spend enough ressources to correct their articles
Martijn Hoekstra skrev 2014-01-10 20:12:
I very much agree with this. Currently we just don't have the manpower to
explain to 'the corporate world'
Who do you refer to when you talk of we. I it a group of people or a
language community. You are certainly not laking for all communities, as
On 10 January 2014 20:12, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.comwrote:
I very much agree with this. Currently we just don't have the manpower to
explain to 'the corporate world' in an understanding and clear fashion that
what they are trying to do is *all wrong*, and what it is they *can*
Hello Peter,
I see the following two possibilities:
Either the paid editing brings a higher quality and thus by that quality
imposes itself as an authority and thus discourage further unqualified
editing
Or the paid editing does not bring a higher quality, then an unpaid
volunteer editor
Hello Peter,
I see the following two possibilities:
Either the paid editing brings a higher quality and thus by that quality
imposes itself as an authority and thus discourage further unqualified
editing
Or the paid editing does not bring a higher quality, then an unpaid
volunteer editor
Christophe's comment about Wikipedia's company articles not being very
complete reminded me of a fun infographic:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5474/11871822903_714f36a83e_h.jpg
There is a strange, systemic hostility towards business at work in the
English Wikipedia. Combined with a love for pop
Quite. Museums' self-interest in employing a Wikipedian-in-Residence is
often quite evident from the way the position is described (raise our
profile etc.)
And what about, say, the Henry Ford Museum? Or the Volkswagen museum? Is
that not knowledge? Is it evil, because it's part of a business?
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
(Note these are my own personal views and in no way reflect any views of
the WMF or anyone else)
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Christophe Henner
christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, the question
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
Ting and Christophe,
Glad to hear we are moving forward on finding more sophisticated ways of
thinking about paid editing. At least for the English Wikipedians I've
talked to, many are pleasantly surprised that the
On 10 January 2014 21:06, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Quite. Museums' self-interest in employing a Wikipedian-in-Residence is
often quite evident from the way the position is described (raise our
profile etc.)
And what about, say, the Henry Ford Museum? Or the Volkswagen museum?
I totally agree with MZMcBride and Erik. It also depends and what the money
go for. If somebody is paid to bend the rules or use their privileged role,
it is an obvious problem. If somebody is paid a compensation for the costs
incurred in collecting materials (as sometimes is the case with
2014/1/9 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl:
I totally agree with MZMcBride and Erik. It also depends and what the money
go for. If somebody is paid to bend the rules or use their privileged role,
it is an obvious problem. If somebody is paid a compensation for the costs
incurred in
Tomasz,
As has been said elsewhere, No registration required, we respect your
privacy, and no paid editing are fundamentally incompatible.
The only way that it would be possible for a system as you describe to
exist, the following would need to be true :
1) No more IP editing -- most COI
Thank you for highlighting something I should have clarified better in my post,
MZMcBride. That sentence should have read paid advocacy editing in line with
Sue's blog post that you referenced.
We continue to support the important work Sarah and others have done in the
GLAM sector through
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but the question is how to enable such a system. If the rules for
paid editors were to be very strict - many paid editors would have
still decide to do it in secrecy anyway,
oh, but there will ALWAYS be those
I agree with you, Dariusz.
We have discussed this at length in the community, and at Wikipedia Academy
in Oslo in december.
There is minimal support of a ban of paid editing. One thing is the fact
that we have both Wikipedians in Residence and editing scholarships with
GLAM institutions. It is
Frank Schulenburg wrote:
[...] it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the
editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.
No.
Paid editing is not the same as paid advocacy (editing). This is a very
important point.
Suggested reading:
Thank you very much for raising this distinction MZ. It's a very important
one and, in the recriminations about this particular event, I would hate
for the 'baby to get thrown out with the bathwater' by losing this
distinction.
-Liam / Wittylama
wittylama.com
Peace, love metadata
On 9 January
39 matches
Mail list logo
