Regarding the Wikimedia Foundation paying editors, brokering paid editing to displace the role of PR agencies, etc.:
Since 2009, my full time work has centered on this area, in providing solid advice to companies and other organizations on how to engage ethically and effectively with Wikipedia. There is one central point that drives my work: an ethic of transparency and non-pushy transparency is the main thing that will lead companies toward engaging in ways that support Wikipedia's goals. As for the identity and background of editors, their level of experience with Wikipedia, and who does or does not pay them -- these things are all important, but they are secondary to the way they approach their work, and whether/how they express respect toward other Wikipedia editors on an ongoing basis. One aspect: working as a Wikipedian in Residence is no different, in structure, from working for a PR company. I believe the Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence proves this point decisively;[1] simply having a certain kind of title or affiliation is no guarantee that one's efforts will be compatible with Wikipedia's values, policies, guidelines, or cultural norms. On the other hand, my clients routinely exhibit good behavior, and get good results. Unfortunately I'm not able to disclose my connection with my clients (who I merely advise -- I don't take any action on their behalf, either on wiki or by reaching out to editors in private), but I can disclose a few projects. The most recent case is the film The Hunting Ground, where the immediate reaction of Wikipedians (including, influentially, Jimmy Wales) was knee-jerk negative, but upon more careful investigation Wikipedians identified no substantial problems in how my client conducted himself. Wikipedians -- myself very much included -- are not perfect. Making clear, meaningful disclosure of one's role, and behaving in ways that reflect a genuine respect for the Wikipedia community, are the key. I have seen many instances of, as Sarah suggests, a paid editor being "more persistent" than Wikipedia volunteers, and using that as a significant tactical advantage. I abhor that practice, and guide my clients explicitly in avoiding that kind of thing. It's in my clients' interest to avoid doing that -- not just in Wikipedia's interest. My clients are typically interested in good long-term results, and they do not want to be saddled with a poor reputation among Wikipedians. It takes some explaining to help them see how that plays out in practice -- but that's what they pay me for. I routinely explain to them how winning a short-term victory through persistence may have negative long-term impacts, because months or years down the road it might result in their article getting deleted or massively changed, or worse, it might land them negative news coverage. They are generally persuaded by this argument. I don't think the WMF should pay existing Wikipedians to write or edit articles, or get involved in identifying which Wikipedians are "better" than others. I have seen very good Wikipedians make errors in judgment; I have made errors in judgment myself. I believe a practice of meaningful transparency is the best approach, because it creates a layer of accountability, where it's possible for others to notice and address errors in judgment. However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't need to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't; the WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting involved in paid editing. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] Included for transparency: Founder/Principal of Wiki Strategies wikistrategies.net On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:49 PM, David Goodman <dgge...@gmail.com> wrote: > Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt the Foundation > altogether. It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency. We're > supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting itself > be used as a medium for advertising. It at least hopes to achieve this by > while not being evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise. > > Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people > freely give us more than enough for our needs, and can therefore hope to > achieve the positive good of providing objective information on > encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not information that > other organizations want people to read. We have no need to compromise. > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <pute...@mccme.ru> > > wrote: > > > > - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles. > > > - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates with > > > WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were > > paid > > > arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give up, > > and I > > > was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also had > > very > > > unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose only > > goal > > > was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality, > > > efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if somebody > > > defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the quality > > > loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who is > paid > > > (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and have to > > do > > > the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more persistent. > > > > > > > > > ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English > > Wikipedia. > > Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded as > > okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about the > > institution that employs them. > > > > But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems > because > > of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor > being > > more persistent). > > > > Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that want > > articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the > > problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my > thinking > > was that it would be better than the current situation. > > > > Sarah​ > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > -- > David Goodman > > DGG at the enWP > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
