Hmm. Once again, I largely agree with WSC. Unless I'm missing something, this idea is largely about fundraising, and I think it could introduce more problems than it solves.
The evidence that I've seen suggest that WMF is very successful at fundraising, but has ongoing difficulties with making progress toward the goal to get 200,000 active editors by 2015. So, I see little reason to implement page adoption if the goal is to fundraise, but if there is something about the proposal that's relevant to improving the active editor count from the current 85,000, I'd be interested in at least learning more about that.
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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.
fwiw, this model was discussed on the private fundraising mailing list
in November 2010, with similar results IMO.
> It comes down to asking what the purpose of the Foundation and a
> 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
> 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
> model that have been discussed many times - there are many potential
> issues, and paid editing in some areas may discourage unpaid editing
> others. However, I think it would be unwise simply to dismiss those
> of possibilities out of hand.
How do you measure risk? Because, as I percieve it, once you lost
unpaid editors confidence, it will be at least as difficult to make them
come back as to go from scratch again. So you better have to be
absolutely sure it won't break the community before you go in such major
Le 2013-03-30 20:51, Steven Walling a écrit :
> There's actually plenty of even more neutral ways to do this IMO, and
> of them have anything to do with promoting the donor or paid editing.
> example: a simple count of how many readers donated in support of
> article. "This article sponsored by 70 Wikipedia readers like you.
> Contribute today by editing or donating." Or something like that.
No. First, you'll also need to put how many person edited the article,
how many times it was edited, and blablabla numbers. Not only could it
prevent new useful edits (oh it was already so much raffined, how could
I dare edit it), but it would probably encourage "let's make this
article have a big edit count" useless contributions.
Now I don't understand, do we have suddely so much need for paid edit?
I mean, sure I would love spending my days "improving" wikipedia and
other wikimedia projects, being paid for that. Give me a median salary,
and I sign right now, and I'm sure I won't be alone here. But I also
would be serriously affraid that it could harm the movement, which I
thing is far more important than my personal pleasure of being a full