charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote
Private payments in support of private interests
are less dangerous than
direct subsidies from Wikimedia.
Or not.
We know to hold them to the same standards as any unpaid writer. The
average editor may be more reticent to question an officially paid writer.
We know they
are outsiders.
How?
By the simple expedient of knowing that we don't pay them.
Direct
payment can too easily suggest that the payee has the WMF stamp of
approval, or somehow states the "official" POV for his selected topics.
Sorry, that's paranoid stuff. Why would the Board hypothetically spend money to
undermine NPOV? Since when has the WMF had an official POV? Why would this sort of thing,
which would have to appear transparently in budgets, be _worse_ than political, religious
or corporate groups paying people to edit, deniably?
Perception is everything. Repeatedly denying that we are run by a cabal
does nothing to convince those who believe it. Spending money to
undermine NPOV does not imply that that is the intention. Having good
articles is perfectly legitimate, and the paid writers would be
instructed to write from a NPOV, but the undermining is more subtle than
that.
Financial transparency? Did I miss something the announcement that
financial reports were now available?
I'm against the concept of paid editors, but
basically because support for the sites in other ways should have priority.
So we really agree on that fundamental question.
Ec