[Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

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

[Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Strainu
Hi,

I've just seen an OTRS ticket asking why isn't Wikipedia giving its
pages for "adoption" (like when you adopt a page and your name ends up
on its cage or something like that). I've moved the ticket to the
donations queue, but I was wondering if this has ever been
discussed/considered before.

Thanks,
   Strainu

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Thomas Dalton
Where would their name go? If it's anywhere more prominent than the names
of the volunteers that wrote the article (which anything on the article
page itself would be) then it doesn't really seem fair...
On Mar 29, 2013 10:37 PM, "Strainu" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've just seen an OTRS ticket asking why isn't Wikipedia giving its
> pages for "adoption" (like when you adopt a page and your name ends up
> on its cage or something like that). I've moved the ticket to the
> donations queue, but I was wondering if this has ever been
> discussed/considered before.
>
> Thanks,
>    Strainu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Deryck Chan-2
In reply to this post by Strainu
Because we've decided that [[WP:Ownership of articles]] is wrong, and
wronger if there's financial sponsorship involved.

On 29 March 2013 22:36, Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've just seen an OTRS ticket asking why isn't Wikipedia giving its
> pages for "adoption" (like when you adopt a page and your name ends up
> on its cage or something like that). I've moved the ticket to the
> donations queue, but I was wondering if this has ever been
> discussed/considered before.
>
> Thanks,
>    Strainu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Mono mium
Yes, but it might be nice if we could let people pay trusted editors to
improve articles (without a COI and with a NPOV) that normally wouldn't get
attention.


On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Deryck Chan <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Because we've decided that [[WP:Ownership of articles]] is wrong, and
> wronger if there's financial sponsorship involved.
>
> On 29 March 2013 22:36, Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've just seen an OTRS ticket asking why isn't Wikipedia giving its
> > pages for "adoption" (like when you adopt a page and your name ends up
> > on its cage or something like that). I've moved the ticket to the
> > donations queue, but I was wondering if this has ever been
> > discussed/considered before.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >    Strainu
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Thomas Dalton
On Mar 30, 2013 12:55 AM, "Mono" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Yes, but it might be nice if we could let people pay trusted editors to
> improve articles (without a COI and with a NPOV) that normally wouldn't
get
> attention.

Would that be nice? I think that would be very harmful...
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Mono mium
How so?


On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Mar 30, 2013 12:55 AM, "Mono" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but it might be nice if we could let people pay trusted editors to
> > improve articles (without a COI and with a NPOV) that normally wouldn't
> get
> > attention.
>
> Would that be nice? I think that would be very harmful...
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Thomas Dalton
On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> How so?

It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
written encyclopedia.

You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid editors.
There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The whole
concept would be extremely divisive.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Thomas Morton
It's a weird dichotomy.

I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic
area. I could easily have spent several grand.

Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture

But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge
benefit.

And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write
these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering this
entire field in GAs in a year.

Without that it will take me a good five years

I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an
awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our
ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem.

Tom

On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > How so?
>
> It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
> written encyclopedia.
>
> You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid editors.
> There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The whole
> concept would be extremely divisive.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Strainu
Guys, I think you're reading more into it than it is. When you're adopting
an animal you don't  get to decide what and how much it gets to eat.
Similarly adopting a wiki page wouldn't mean you pay for having a say on
the content. At the bottom end of the reward scale you could get a badge
you could put on YOUR website, without having your name on Wikipedia at all.

I'm not necessarely in favour of this idea but i wanted to see if it's been
discussed before. I guess that if it has, people havebeen confusing this
idea with paid editing.


Pe sâmbătă, 30 martie 2013, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]> a
scris:

> It's a weird dichotomy.
>
> I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic
> area. I could easily have spent several grand.
>
> Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture
>
> But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge
> benefit.
>
> And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write
> these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering
this

> entire field in GAs in a year.
>
> Without that it will take me a good five years
>
> I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an
> awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our
> ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem.
>
> Tom
>
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
wrote:
>> >
>> > How so?
>>
>> It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
>> written encyclopedia.
>>
>> You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid
editors.
>> There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The
whole

>> concept would be extremely divisive.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Craig Franklin
In reply to this post by Thomas Morton
It comes down to asking what the purpose of the Foundation and a project
like Wikipedia is.  Is it to produce a free source of knowledge, or is to
promote volunteerism?  If it's possible to build a better encyclopædia by
encouraging paid editing or allowing for-profit entities to sponsor a
particular page, then that's a possibility that we ought to make ourselves
open to.  Volunteerism, of course, has served the movement well and got us
to where we find ourselves today, but it is not and should not be
considered an end unto itself.

Of course, as has been pointed out, there are potential pitfalls with this
model that have been discussed many times - there are many potential COI
issues, and paid editing in some areas may discourage unpaid editing in
others.  However, I think it would be unwise simply to dismiss those sort
of possibilities out of hand.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin

On 30 March 2013 11:29, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It's a weird dichotomy.
>
> I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic
> area. I could easily have spent several grand.
>
> Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture
>
> But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge
> benefit.
>
> And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write
> these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering this
> entire field in GAs in a year.
>
> Without that it will take me a good five years
>
> I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an
> awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our
> ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem.
>
> Tom
>
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
> > written encyclopedia.
> >
> > You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid
> editors.
> > There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The
> whole
> > concept would be extremely divisive.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Jane Darnell
As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea, but it is hard
to define and put a price on it. I would guess you would charge more
to sponsor high-profile articles, the way a parks commission can
advertise donor names on park benches, where the more prominently
placed ones get a higher "price". That said, does the sponsorship only
apply to the page in one language? And how long does the sponsorship
stay with the page? Forever? That doesn't seem right. Putting the
sponsor's name visibly on the page can also be confusing, because most
readers will assume sponsor=writer, and this is incorrect. You could
create a donor's list though that links to the pages and have the
sponsor names listed there with the year of their sponsorship, with
each year an update possible with the amount paid (or amount block in
a scheme of bronze, silver, gold). This way high profile pages could
have more sponsors. With the sponsor amounts as a guide, individual
Wikipedia contributors may apply for a mini-grant to cover costs of
source books, etc for future work based on past work in these pages.

2013/3/30, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]>:

> It comes down to asking what the purpose of the Foundation and a project
> like Wikipedia is.  Is it to produce a free source of knowledge, or is to
> promote volunteerism?  If it's possible to build a better encyclopædia by
> encouraging paid editing or allowing for-profit entities to sponsor a
> particular page, then that's a possibility that we ought to make ourselves
> open to.  Volunteerism, of course, has served the movement well and got us
> to where we find ourselves today, but it is not and should not be
> considered an end unto itself.
>
> Of course, as has been pointed out, there are potential pitfalls with this
> model that have been discussed many times - there are many potential COI
> issues, and paid editing in some areas may discourage unpaid editing in
> others.  However, I think it would be unwise simply to dismiss those sort
> of possibilities out of hand.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin
>
> On 30 March 2013 11:29, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It's a weird dichotomy.
>>
>> I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic
>> area. I could easily have spent several grand.
>>
>> Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture
>>
>> But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge
>> benefit.
>>
>> And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write
>> these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering
>> this
>> entire field in GAs in a year.
>>
>> Without that it will take me a good five years
>>
>> I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an
>> awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our
>> ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > How so?
>> >
>> > It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
>> > written encyclopedia.
>> >
>> > You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid
>> editors.
>> > There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The
>> whole
>> > concept would be extremely divisive.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Thomas Dalton
On Mar 30, 2013 9:46 AM, "Jane Darnell" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea,

It is worth remembering that we don't actually have a problem with
fundraising. We can raise enormous amounts of money incredibly easily by
putting banners on the fifth most visited website on the world. (I don't
want to diminish the work of the foundation and chapter fundraising teams,
but they only have to work really hard because we have so few people
working on fundraising compared to other charities with similar budgets.)

The kind of people that would sponsor a page probably donate anyway because
of the banners. You might manage to increase their donation size, but
that's not really important. If you want to come up with new fundraising
strategies, try and think of ones that attract donors we wouldn't otherwise
get. For example, legacies (donations left in people's wills) would be a
great way to diversify our revenue.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Jane Darnell
Why would anyone want to sponsor a page?
What would they get out of it?
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jane Darnell" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>; "Wikimedia Mailing List"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"


> As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea, but it is hard
> to define and put a price on it. I would guess you would charge more
> to sponsor high-profile articles, the way a parks commission can
> advertise donor names on park benches, where the more prominently
> placed ones get a higher "price". That said, does the sponsorship only
> apply to the page in one language? And how long does the sponsorship
> stay with the page? Forever? That doesn't seem right. Putting the
> sponsor's name visibly on the page can also be confusing, because most
> readers will assume sponsor=writer, and this is incorrect. You could
> create a donor's list though that links to the pages and have the
> sponsor names listed there with the year of their sponsorship, with
> each year an update possible with the amount paid (or amount block in
> a scheme of bronze, silver, gold). This way high profile pages could
> have more sponsors. With the sponsor amounts as a guide, individual
> Wikipedia contributors may apply for a mini-grant to cover costs of
> source books, etc for future work based on past work in these pages.
>
> 2013/3/30, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]>:
>> It comes down to asking what the purpose of the Foundation and a project
>> like Wikipedia is.  Is it to produce a free source of knowledge, or is to
>> promote volunteerism?  If it's possible to build a better encyclopædia by
>> encouraging paid editing or allowing for-profit entities to sponsor a
>> particular page, then that's a possibility that we ought to make
>> ourselves
>> open to.  Volunteerism, of course, has served the movement well and got
>> us
>> to where we find ourselves today, but it is not and should not be
>> considered an end unto itself.
>>
>> Of course, as has been pointed out, there are potential pitfalls with
>> this
>> model that have been discussed many times - there are many potential COI
>> issues, and paid editing in some areas may discourage unpaid editing in
>> others.  However, I think it would be unwise simply to dismiss those sort
>> of possibilities out of hand.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Craig Franklin
>>
>> On 30 March 2013 11:29, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's a weird dichotomy.
>>>
>>> I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic
>>> area. I could easily have spent several grand.
>>>
>>> Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture
>>>
>>> But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge
>>> benefit.
>>>
>>> And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write
>>> these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering
>>> this
>>> entire field in GAs in a year.
>>>
>>> Without that it will take me a good five years
>>>
>>> I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an
>>> awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our
>>> ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > How so?
>>> >
>>> > It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
>>> > written encyclopedia.
>>> >
>>> > You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid
>>> editors.
>>> > There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The
>>> whole
>>> > concept would be extremely divisive.
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> > [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2240 / Virus Database: 2641/5713 - Release Date: 03/29/13
>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Strainu
What do they get when they donate? What do they get when they "adopt"
wildlife?

Still, some people are donating and/or are adopting wildlife.

Strainu


2013/3/30 Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>

> Why would anyone want to sponsor a page?
> What would they get out of it?
> Cheers,
> Peter
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jane Darnell" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>; "Wikimedia Mailing List" <
> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>>
> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"
>
>
>  As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea, but it is hard
>> to define and put a price on it. I would guess you would charge more
>> to sponsor high-profile articles, the way a parks commission can
>> advertise donor names on park benches, where the more prominently
>> placed ones get a higher "price". That said, does the sponsorship only
>> apply to the page in one language? And how long does the sponsorship
>> stay with the page? Forever? That doesn't seem right. Putting the
>> sponsor's name visibly on the page can also be confusing, because most
>> readers will assume sponsor=writer, and this is incorrect. You could
>> create a donor's list though that links to the pages and have the
>> sponsor names listed there with the year of their sponsorship, with
>> each year an update possible with the amount paid (or amount block in
>> a scheme of bronze, silver, gold). This way high profile pages could
>> have more sponsors. With the sponsor amounts as a guide, individual
>> Wikipedia contributors may apply for a mini-grant to cover costs of
>> source books, etc for future work based on past work in these pages.
>>
>> 2013/3/30, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>> It comes down to asking what the purpose of the Foundation and a project
>>> like Wikipedia is.  Is it to produce a free source of knowledge, or is to
>>> promote volunteerism?  If it's possible to build a better encyclopædia by
>>> encouraging paid editing or allowing for-profit entities to sponsor a
>>> particular page, then that's a possibility that we ought to make
>>> ourselves
>>> open to.  Volunteerism, of course, has served the movement well and got
>>> us
>>> to where we find ourselves today, but it is not and should not be
>>> considered an end unto itself.
>>>
>>> Of course, as has been pointed out, there are potential pitfalls with
>>> this
>>> model that have been discussed many times - there are many potential COI
>>> issues, and paid editing in some areas may discourage unpaid editing in
>>> others.  However, I think it would be unwise simply to dismiss those sort
>>> of possibilities out of hand.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Craig Franklin
>>>
>>> On 30 March 2013 11:29, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  It's a weird dichotomy.
>>>>
>>>> I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic
>>>> area. I could easily have spent several grand.
>>>>
>>>> Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture
>>>>
>>>> But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge
>>>> benefit.
>>>>
>>>> And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write
>>>> these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering
>>>> this
>>>> entire field in GAs in a year.
>>>>
>>>> Without that it will take me a good five years
>>>>
>>>> I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an
>>>> awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our
>>>> ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > How so?
>>>> >
>>>> > It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
>>>> > written encyclopedia.
>>>> >
>>>> > You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid
>>>> editors.
>>>> > There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The
>>>> whole
>>>> > concept would be extremely divisive.
>>>> > ______________________________**_________________
>>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>> > [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]><javascript:;>
>>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**
>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>>> >
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>>>
>>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.2240 / Virus Database: 2641/5713 - Release Date: 03/29/13
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Steven Walling
In reply to this post by Strainu
On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Strainu wrote:

> Guys, I think you're reading more into it than it is. When you're adopting
> an animal you don't  get to decide what and how much it gets to eat.
> Similarly adopting a wiki page wouldn't mean you pay for having a say on
> the content. At the bottom end of the reward scale you could get a badge
> you could put on YOUR website, without having your name on Wikipedia at
> all.
>
> I'm not necessarely in favour of this idea but i wanted to see if it's been
> discussed before. I guess that if it has, people havebeen confusing this
> idea with paid editing.


Big +1 to this comment.

There's actually plenty of even more neutral ways to do this IMO, and none
of them have anything to do with promoting the donor or paid editing. For
example: a simple count of how many readers donated in support of this
article. "This article sponsored by 70 Wikipedia readers like you.
Contribute today by editing or donating." Or something like that.

Anyway this discussion should be on a public wiki, ideally Meta, and we
should invite Megan, Zack, and the rest of the fundraising team, not to
mention the wider community.


>
>
> Pe sâmbătă, 30 martie 2013, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
> a
> scris:
> > It's a weird dichotomy.
> >
> > I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic
> > area. I could easily have spent several grand.
> >
> > Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture
> >
> > But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge
> > benefit.
> >
> > And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write
> > these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering
> this
> > entire field in GAs in a year.
> >
> > Without that it will take me a good five years
> >
> > I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an
> > awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our
> > ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <[hidden email] <javascript:;><javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > How so?
> >>
> >> It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
> >> written encyclopedia.
> >>
> >> You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid
> editors.
> >> There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The
> whole
> >> concept would be extremely divisive.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Mark
In reply to this post by Mono mium
There's a little of that which goes on currently (I mean above-board,
not counting anything that may happen unofficially). The most common
case is that a cultural organization, such as a museum, provides funds
for a "Wikipedian in residence" who is brought in to do a mixture of
training other people, and paying special attention to articles in a
particular area of interest.

I imagine this avoids trouble in most cases mainly because the goals are
aligned: if we believe the cultural organization is, like us, only
aiming at high-quality, accurate, NPOV coverage of their subject area,
rather than any kind of self-aggrandizement or POV-pushing, then we have
much in common.

-Mark


On 3/30/13 1:55 AM, Mono wrote:

> Yes, but it might be nice if we could let people pay trusted editors to
> improve articles (without a COI and with a NPOV) that normally wouldn't get
> attention.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Deryck Chan <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Because we've decided that [[WP:Ownership of articles]] is wrong, and
>> wronger if there's financial sponsorship involved.
>>
>> On 29 March 2013 22:36, Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've just seen an OTRS ticket asking why isn't Wikipedia giving its
>>> pages for "adoption" (like when you adopt a page and your name ends up
>>> on its cage or something like that). I've moved the ticket to the
>>> donations queue, but I was wondering if this has ever been
>>> discussed/considered before.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>     Strainu
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Thomas Dalton
On Mar 30, 2013 10:28 PM, "Mark" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> There's a little of that which goes on currently (I mean above-board, not
counting anything that may happen unofficially). The most common case is
that a cultural organization, such as a museum, provides funds for a
"Wikipedian in residence" who is brought in to do a mixture of training
other people, and paying special attention to articles in a particular area
of interest.

I believe Wikipedians in Residence generally avoid actually editing
articles where they have a conflict of interest. They just provide support
to others, that aren't conflicted, to edit them.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Steven Walling
How would sponsorship money for a page be spent to make the sponsorship
meaningful?
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Walling" <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"


> On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Strainu wrote:
>
>> Guys, I think you're reading more into it than it is. When you're
>> adopting
>> an animal you don't  get to decide what and how much it gets to eat.
>> Similarly adopting a wiki page wouldn't mean you pay for having a say on
>> the content. At the bottom end of the reward scale you could get a badge
>> you could put on YOUR website, without having your name on Wikipedia at
>> all.
>>
>> I'm not necessarely in favour of this idea but i wanted to see if it's
>> been
>> discussed before. I guess that if it has, people havebeen confusing this
>> idea with paid editing.
>
>
> Big +1 to this comment.
>
> There's actually plenty of even more neutral ways to do this IMO, and none
> of them have anything to do with promoting the donor or paid editing. For
> example: a simple count of how many readers donated in support of this
> article. "This article sponsored by 70 Wikipedia readers like you.
> Contribute today by editing or donating." Or something like that.
>
> Anyway this discussion should be on a public wiki, ideally Meta, and we
> should invite Megan, Zack, and the rest of the fundraising team, not to
> mention the wider community.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Pe sâmbătă, 30 martie 2013, Thomas Morton
>> <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
>> a
>> scris:
>> > It's a weird dichotomy.
>> >
>> > I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic
>> > area. I could easily have spent several grand.
>> >
>> > Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture
>> >
>> > But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge
>> > benefit.
>> >
>> > And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write
>> > these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering
>> this
>> > entire field in GAs in a year.
>> >
>> > Without that it will take me a good five years
>> >
>> > I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently
>> > an
>> > awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our
>> > ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem.
>> >
>> > Tom
>> >
>> > On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <[hidden email]
>> >> <javascript:;><javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > How so?
>> >>
>> >> It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
>> >> written encyclopedia.
>> >>
>> >> You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid
>> editors.
>> >> There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The
>> whole
>> >> concept would be extremely divisive.
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> >> [hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2240 / Virus Database: 2641/5714 - Release Date: 03/30/13
>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

Richard Symonds-3
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Replying off my phone here, so no signature or lengthy response...

For Wikipedians in Residence, it varies I believe. I've seen some WiRs edit
articles directly, whereas others, including WMUK's WiRs, don't edit
articles about their institution at all, instead focussing on training,
digitisation, or making sources easily available.
On Mar 30, 2013 10:36 PM, "Thomas Dalton" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mar 30, 2013 10:28 PM, "Mark" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > There's a little of that which goes on currently (I mean above-board, not
> counting anything that may happen unofficially). The most common case is
> that a cultural organization, such as a museum, provides funds for a
> "Wikipedian in residence" who is brought in to do a mixture of training
> other people, and paying special attention to articles in a particular area
> of interest.
>
> I believe Wikipedians in Residence generally avoid actually editing
> articles where they have a conflict of interest. They just provide support
> to others, that aren't conflicted, to edit them.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"

WereSpielChequers-2
In reply to this post by Strainu
I see several issues/concerns re sponsoring pages.

Firstly it is a form of advertising, even if we don't name the sponsor on
the page (and there will be pressure to do so) then we will have headlines
along the lines of car maker x launches new "peregrine" car - sponsors
Wikipedia page on Peregine Falcon. A large enough part of the community
don't want to accept advertising, such a large part that any advertising
however disguised as "sponsorship" is going to be more trouble than its
worth.

Secondly there is the argument that sponsorship could help by funding the
buying of sources. We already have microgrants available to help here, why
do we also need sponsorship?

Thirdly there is the vexed issue of paid editing, here the important thing
is to avoid COI. At Wikimania in Gdansk Google's charity arm presented a
relatively uncontentious program they had run to translate medical articles
from English into various South Asian languages.

Fourthly you can expect news stories along the lines of "travel company Y
stops sponsoring Wikipedia articles on resorts X and Z, starts sponsoring
articles on resorts A and B  as it moves out of Country Q and expands offer
in Country C".

My concern if you approach these via sponsorship is that you then have to
have a whole new bureaucracy around who is an acceptable sponsor, and
whoever seeks to control that has an impossible task as the sponsors may
not disclose their plans in advance (hypothetical example, a computer game
manufacturer known for science fiction themed games sponsors some unrelated
articles re Roman history and the Magonid dynasty, they then get a lot of
free publicity as the games press correctly speculates that they are going
to launch a "swords and sandals" type game based on the Punic Wars.

So in my opinion best to not allow sponsorship of articles.

WSC

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:04:35 -0700
> From: Mono <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"
> Message-ID:
>         <
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> How so?
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 2013 12:55 AM, "Mono" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, but it might be nice if we could let people pay trusted editors to
> > > improve articles (without a COI and with a NPOV) that normally wouldn't
> > get
> > > attention.
> >
> > Would that be nice? I think that would be very harmful...
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:08:45 +0100
> From: Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"
> Message-ID:
>         <CALTQccfVk7ABPZmeAC5K23XFa_kmO==
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > How so?
>
> It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
> written encyclopedia.
>
> You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid editors.
> There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The whole
> concept would be extremely divisive.
>
>
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:29:33 +0000
> From: Thomas Morton <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"
> Message-ID:
>         <CAKO2H7_PR2CKzF=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> It's a weird dichotomy.
>
> I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic
> area. I could easily have spent several grand.
>
> Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture
>
> But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge
> benefit.
>
> And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write
> these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering this
> entire field in GAs in a year.
>
> Without that it will take me a good five years
>
> I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an
> awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our
> ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem.
>
> Tom
>
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, "Mono" <[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
> > written encyclopedia.
> >
> > You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid
> editors.
> > There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The
> whole
> > concept would be extremely divisive.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:22 +0200
> From: Strainu <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Adopt a page"
> Message-ID:
>         <CAC9meRLKPB5iX6MFqU-ZGUQQZwCGMDT=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Guys, I think you're reading more into it than it is. When you're adopting
> an animal you don't  get to decide what and how much it gets to eat.
> Similarly adopting a wiki page wouldn't mean you pay for having a say on
> the content. At the bottom end of the reward scale you could get a badge
> you could put on YOUR website, without having your name on Wikipedia at
> all.
>
> I'm not necessarely in favour of this idea but i wanted to see if it's been
> discussed before. I guess that if it has, people havebeen confusing this
> idea with paid editing.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
12