On 1/6/14, 7:07 AM, Peter Gervai wrote:
I apologise for the break and please go on with the shit throwing contest but I guess there is nothing wrong with "paid editing" if it follows the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Experienced editors write better articles, people with lots of experience in their favourite field write better articles, and since article writing is really hard work (unless, of course, you're doing it all wrong) editors usually pick a few themes and work on it. It is understandable that if someone would like to have a topic covered and would like to convince someone to write THAT article instead of other ones then it may mean some way of convincing, money or otherwise. Well written articles have much better chance to stay and evolve.
Yes, if anything I'd like more of *this* kind of paid editing, where someone is willing to pay for a neutral article on a subject to be created. It does require that the person accepting money: 1) refuse payment from people who want articles created that simply shouldn't exit; and 2) actually write a neutral article, not PR-shill stuff. Some people won't live up to those criteria, but I don't see it as inherently problematic. There is a *possibility* of COI, but that is true for many things besides money. I currently write some articles on Greek locations, history, and museums. I'm also Greek by ethnicity. Is that already, in itself, a COI? Would it be more of a COI if a Greek cultural organization or a museum were paying me to improve the articles on such subjects? Are "Wikipedian in residence" programs COIs? Overall I think such interventions to improve Wikipedia by putting funds into supporting editors are a good thing, when the editing they support aligns with the mission of writing good articles.
Best, Mark _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
