[Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

James Salsman-2
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

Gerard Meijssen-3
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 <[hidden email]> 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?
>
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

James Salsman-2
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
>
> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

Brill Lyle
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) weakens the potential for innovation, information
gathering, and quality control.

But then again I think there should be rich and deep cultural partnerships
with GLAM and other institutions, even TV networks and other content
creators, that are funded by grants and outreach in an effort to make
Wikipedia less text heavy, less citation lite, and less curated by
hobbyists who drive out experts in their fields.

I am saying this lovingly, of course, as a hobbyist here....

Agree also about how Wikimedia *does* pay many people -- and should
continue to do so in service to the projects. This is the first "dirty
secret" #NotReally I was truly shocked by once I started volunteering and
getting more involved here.

I don't get citation hunt, find it intimidating and is not why I edit
Wikipedia, but I support improving citations 100%.

- Erika

*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>
Secretary, Wikimedia NYC
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC>

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:02 AM, James Salsman <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

Brion Vibber-4
On Apr 23, 2016 4:43 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" <[hidden email]>
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 underserved areas...

>Why
> should we pay for additional content in English and not pay for content in
> other languages?

Because we might care about those things, and factor them into
prioritization above?

-- brion

>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

James Salsman-2
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
>
>
> 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 mean there would be no
reason to not pay for new content instead of citations for existing content.


> Why should we pay for additional content in English and not pay for
> content in
> other languages?


CItation Hunt is already translated into six diverse languages, five of
which are in our top 20, and it seems to work in RTL Hebrew.

Research is done that may lead to the use of Wikidata for citations.


I would love to see a link for the state of the art on that.

What is the status of
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Knowledge_Graph_with_DeepDive

and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/StrepHit:_Wikidata_Statements_Validation_via_References
?
There have been no updates on either at all this year, that I've been able
to find, even though at least one of them is supposed to be producing
monthly status reports. I'm not happy with the extent to which Wikidata has
fallen into a meaningless soup of impenetrable data category numbers for
its user interfaces. For a project being pushed as supporting translations,
Wikidata is really difficult for direct use by humans speaking any natural
language, but has been fantastic for search engines displaying summary
information cutting into Foundation pageviews and fundraising.


> We have a project called Wikiquote, why not invest attention into
> Wikiquote.


Because there is real demand and multiple quality-related fundamental
needs for Wikipedia citations which can be easily automated with Citation
Hunt, but all of the demand for Wikiquote expansion is fully addressed by
Mediawiki as-is.


> 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.
>

The number of {{citation needed}} tags is growing faster than new articles,
and the rate at which they are addressed is so slow as to be negligible if
you disregard WikiProject improvement drives, which occur less frequently
than they used to.


> As long as there is no obvious benefit, it would destroy what we are and
> how we do things for no obvious benefit.


As long as we don't measure the benefit, we have no way to know whether
it's positive and will forever remain non-obvious.



> On 23 April 2016 at 16:02, James Salsman <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

Keegan Peterzell
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:54 AM, James Salsman <[hidden email]> 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 chapters and see what
they think? Popular opinion on the general mailing list isn't much currency
when you're talking about use of actual currency for chapters.

--
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
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. In the bio medical world the result is an industry that is dominated
by restricted access to literature and a patented industry the many people
that die as a result.

I am totally in favour of making it easy for us to enable people to work
with restricted sources as is done by Jake Orlowitz. I am totally in favour
of developing an educational module that teaches students to search the web
for sources and link it to the "Citation Hunt". I am totally in favour to
further develop tools like this.

When considering spending money on citations, it is important to consider
again the use of Wikiquote. Some Wikipedias insist on sources in their own
language and consequently fail articles when it does not exist.

Really sources are important. I get it when having them and nurturing them
is a priority. It does NOT mean that we pay professionals in a crooked
industry. It is much better to expand our outreach to libraries and seek
the use of commercial sources in the libraries that enable this for their
users. Libraries are our friends and in this publishers are our enemy.
Thanks,
        GerardM

On 23 April 2016 at 18:00, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >
> >
> > 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 mean there would be no
> reason to not pay for new content instead of citations for existing
> content.
>
>
> > Why should we pay for additional content in English and not pay for
> > content in
> > other languages?
>
>
> CItation Hunt is already translated into six diverse languages, five of
> which are in our top 20, and it seems to work in RTL Hebrew.
>
> Research is done that may lead to the use of Wikidata for citations.
>
>
> I would love to see a link for the state of the art on that.
>
> What is the status of
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Knowledge_Graph_with_DeepDive
>
> and
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/StrepHit:_Wikidata_Statements_Validation_via_References
> ?
> There have been no updates on either at all this year, that I've been able
> to find, even though at least one of them is supposed to be producing
> monthly status reports. I'm not happy with the extent to which Wikidata has
> fallen into a meaningless soup of impenetrable data category numbers for
> its user interfaces. For a project being pushed as supporting translations,
> Wikidata is really difficult for direct use by humans speaking any natural
> language, but has been fantastic for search engines displaying summary
> information cutting into Foundation pageviews and fundraising.
>
>
> > We have a project called Wikiquote, why not invest attention into
> > Wikiquote.
>
>
> Because there is real demand and multiple quality-related fundamental
> needs for Wikipedia citations which can be easily automated with Citation
> Hunt, but all of the demand for Wikiquote expansion is fully addressed by
> Mediawiki as-is.
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> The number of {{citation needed}} tags is growing faster than new articles,
> and the rate at which they are addressed is so slow as to be negligible if
> you disregard WikiProject improvement drives, which occur less frequently
> than they used to.
>
>
> > As long as there is no obvious benefit, it would destroy what we are and
> > how we do things for no obvious benefit.
>
>
> As long as we don't measure the benefit, we have no way to know whether
> it's positive and will forever remain non-obvious.
>
>
>
> > On 23 April 2016 at 16:02, James Salsman <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

Ricordisamoa
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
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 researchers dohttps://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:[hidden email]
> Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,<mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

Marco Fossati-2
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
Dear James,

Regarding StrepHit, you have certainly missed the timeline & progress tab,
as well as the midpoint report one:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/StrepHit:_Wikidata_Statements_Validation_via_References/Timeline
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/StrepHit:_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 <[hidden email]>
To: "[hidden email]"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

What is the status of
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Knowledge_Graph_with_DeepDive
and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/StrepHit:_Wikidata_Statements_Validation_via_References
?
There have been no updates on either at all this year, that I've been able
to find, even though at least one of them is supposed to be producing
monthly status reports.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding Citation Hunt

James Salsman-2
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
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 selector on https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en
seems like a terrible idea. I have confirmed some real-world abuse brought
about by a passing acquaintance to whom I showed Citation Hunt immediately
selecting a category in which they had an clear self-interest in conflict
with improving the encyclopedia. The industry is corrupt because
most everyone is self-interested unless you build complicated
review machines to try to dilute their self interest.


> Libraries are our friends and in this publishers are our enemy.
>

The libraries are our friends because (and to the extent that they) they
pay to support the peer review and related systems which form the basis of
the reliable source criteria. The publishers are our enemy because (and
to the extent that they) they parasitically detract from those systems.

If we ever do get a review system suitable for funding, you can look at
doing so as the logical analog of YouTube, Spotify, and the similar
music content libraries adjusting their royalty payment schedules to cover
smaller performing artists, which they could easily do to return to
supporting the pre-mass piracy e.g. 1970s levels of performing artists.
Volunteer editors are to unsigned folk musicians what publishing company
CEOs are to top-40 musicians and their parasitic management. I am happy to
talk about this in greater detail on the Public Policy list.

Best regards,
Jim
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>