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 citations. We
have a project called Wikiquote, why not invest attention into Wikiquote.
Really all the basic reasons why work on citations deserves additional
funding is lacking. It does not explain what it will bring us anything that
we cannot get in another way.
As long as there is no obvious benefit, it would destroy what we are and
how we do things for no obvious benefit.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 23 April 2016 at 16:02, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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, including reader-facing administrative and content far more
> prominent than citations. We encourage Wikipedian in Residence programs
> where third parties pay for all kinds of content development. The PR
> editing guidelines explicitly recognize that paid content happens anyway,
> we can't control it, but we can offer best practices. We support editing
> assigned as part of academic class requirements.
>
> What reason is there to flatly rule out paying people to find citations
> before measuring the quality and cost/benefit ratio of doing so with a
> variety of both incentive payment models and managers?
>
>
> > > 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 not something that the
> Foundation
> > > could do without some risk of breaching the DMCA safe harbor
> provisions,
> > as
> > > far as I can see. Even if I am technically wrong about that, the
> > > appearances would be that it's obvious exertion of what would be
> positive
> > > editorial control, which would still mean a greater likelihood of
> > lawsuits
> > > by disgruntled BLP and corporate subjects who can't win in court but
> can
> > > waste everyone's money.
> > >
> > > But I would rather have multiple measurements administered by different
> > > parties anyway, because there are likely to be large uncontrollable
> > sources
> > > of noise.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
