Revolution of 2016/Paid editing
WMF and paid editing[edit]
I would personally love to see people employed to do serious content work, and I'd rather see them supported through educationally-minded institutions than be hired by random PR firms to work on their clients' articles. I don't know whether that's politically feasible through WMF now or in the future, but I also think it's important that the WMF not be seen as the only funding game in town either.
4. Rethinking Sue's decision that the Foundation would never pay for content. I can think of several ways in which the Foundation could either pay or facilitate payment.
I'll leave it there, because this is long, and perhaps reply to your other points in another email. Just one final thought. When I lived in London years ago, a new newspaper started for homeless people, The Big Issue. It is sold by the homeless on the streets, with the idea of giving them a way to earn an income. The homeless and other volunteers also used to help write it. The idea was that, as it became more successful, everyone would be paid, because the concept of it was to lift everyone up.
I would love to see the Wikimedia Foundation embrace that philosophy, namely that part of its job is to nurture its workforce (paid and unpaid), offer them opportunity where it can, lift them up, educate them, show them how to educate others, and respect them, so that everyone who gets involved seriously with Wikipedia finds their lives improved because of that involvement.
Unpaid workforce[edit]
1. Recognizing that we are an unpaid workforce.
The topic of unpaid labor -- and exploiting addictive behaviors -- is a general one with free and open source software specifically, as well as user generated content generally, and I agree it deserves a lot more thought.
Substitutes to paid editing[edit]
At the beginning of the year, the WMF would set a budget, add some buffer, and all that is received on top of that goes to a charity pool which "belongs" to the editors. However, they can't claim any of the money for themselves, but instead can choose how much they'd like to give to charity A, charity B, etc. So, for instance, I'm a fan of the work of UNICEF and a lesser-known charity called Evidence Action. So "my" compensation for my Wikipedia work would be an amount X that I prorate between these two organizations. Other editors would also take part in this scheme.
If we divide the current WMF budget ($58M) by the current number of monthly active editors (71K), then take 60% off the top for keeping the lights on, infrastructure, etc. -- this is a fairly typical overhead percentage for grants at universities -- we're still left with $325/editor.
Personally, I'd vote my funds for edit-a-thons in a box :)
Methods to pay the editors[edit]
For example, it could set up a department that accepts contracts from individuals and groups who want certain articles to be written or rewritten. Instead of paying a PR company, those people would pay the Foundation. The Foundation would maintain a list of excellent editors and would offer the contract to the most appropriate, taking a percentage of the fee for itself.
I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying them cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay, food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs work, like workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
— David Cuenca Tudela, https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082533.html
I remain convinced that http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review can solve this problem through a new spinoff such as WikiEd Foundation, but that's still probably at least a year off.
Who should be paid[edit]
As of January 2016, the English WP had 3,492 editors that the Foundation calls "very active," but that's only 100 edits a month. [1] The core workforce is considerably smaller, and they're the ones who keep the place running by tidying and writing/rewriting articles, creating and maintaining various processes and policies, creating templates, and so on.
I'll say that if I was going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying qualified translators to support smaller projects, and Wikisourcers, and people who may have the interest and ability to edit but instead have to work 60 and 70 hour weeks on susbsistence wages simply to feed their children.
On 2/25/16 2:16 AM, Risker wrote:
> And I'll say that if I was going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying qualified translators to
> support smaller projects...
I'd find a pilot project to do something like this very exciting.
If we want to make a difference, a real difference, we enable refugees in refugee camps to edit Wikipedia. They have nothing to do, they are often well educated. It is wonderful when they can because it not only gives them something to do, it gives them a sense of self-worth and this prevents the onset of a lot of mental health issues.
— Gerard Meijssen, https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082538.html
Reasons (and positions) against paid editing[edit]
Different image of the movement, and, as a consequence, less donations, as Risker already pointed out.
— Yaroslav M. Blanter, https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082457.html
Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
— Yaroslav M. Blanter, https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082457.html
Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates with WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were paid arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give up, and I was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also had very unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose only goal was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality, efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if somebody defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the quality loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who is paid (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and have to do the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more persistent.
— Yaroslav M. Blanter, https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082457.html
Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt the Foundation altogether. It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency. We're supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting itself be used as a medium for advertising. It at least hopes to achieve this by while not being evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
I am appalled that anybody is seriously suggesting "paid editing" be institutionalized.
The real issue to be addressed are the large number of trustees, staff, Arbcom members, and administrators who are undisclosed paid editors and who ensure that uninterested editors are driven away.
Reasons in favor of paid editing[edit]
Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English Wikipedia. Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded as okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about the institution that employs them.
But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems because of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor being more persistent).
Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that want articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my thinking was that it would be better than the current situation.
Reasons against WMF as a broker[edit]
However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't need to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't; the WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting involved in paid editing.
Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.
Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the editorial process, which allows to claim WMF is only hosting the content.
If WMF is somewhat involved in an editorial process which results in paying the authors, then WMF might lose the "host" status.
— Florence Devouard, https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082608.html
For example, when you are simply a host provider, you can not be held responsible if you host a content which is defaming a person as long as you were not aware of it. Once the host is informed of the existence of the illegal content, it has an obligation of removing it.
...
However, when the company is considered to have an editorial role (and this is very vague...), it may be considered legally responsible for any illegal content being on its servers. It is by default considered aware of the illegal content, and even worse... supporting its presence there.
— Florence Devouard, https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082697.html
Reasons in favor of WMF as a broker[edit]
To address a few issues: the point of suggesting the Foundation as a neutral broker is to remove the paid editor's COI. The editor would have no relationship with the people wanting the article, and would not be chosen by them. The brief from the Foundation would be to produce a well-written, reasonably comprehensive, neutral article about X, based on the best sources available. (Someone referred to this as advertising. It would be exactly the opposite.)
It needn't be the Foundation that organizes this. A third party might work, but the danger of a private company doing it is that they would rely on it for profit, and therefore would be sensitive to pressure from companies. The idea of the Foundation as broker is that it would always place the core policies above the desires of the client. Foundation involvement struck me as the only way for an editor to be paid for an article without having a COI.
I believe someone else suggested in this thread that it could be run the way the Education Program is, as a related but separate body. That would be something you would be perfectly placed to lead, Pete, given your experience as consultant, editor, and former Foundation employee.
Examples[edit]
Since 2009, my full time work has centered on this area, in providing solid advice to companies and other organizations on how to engage ethically and effectively with Wikipedia. There is one central point that drives my work: an ethic of transparency and non-pushy transparency is the main thing that will lead companies toward engaging in ways that support Wikipedia's goals. As for the identity and background of editors, their level of experience with Wikipedia, and who does or does not pay them -- these things are all important, but they are secondary to the way they approach their work, and whether/how they express respect toward other Wikipedia editors on an ongoing basis.