[WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

Sun Nov 26 10:13:10 UTC 2006

On 11/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Paying people to write articles would be a whole new ballgame, and
> probably very un-wiki..  There would be no more effective way of
> creating a class of vested interests with certain visions of how they
> want the project to look.  We all want better coverage, but at what cost?

Don't be so foolish to deny that there are already people being paid
to edit...

The question in my mind is: Will more people be paid to advance the
public good in cooperation with the larger community of contributors,
or will more people be paid to advance private interests in opposition
and through subverison of the communities interests.

Done right, I think such an adventure could do a lot to strengthen our
community and leave us better prepared to cope with the results of
people paid to edit for less noble goals.

At least were we to embark on that particular journey we would do with
sensitivity and understanding of the risks. In no way should any such
measure be itself used as a mechanism for control. The purpose of paid
writers would be .. to write. And any such arrangement should be
structured to avoid the creation of such interests. For example, it
would be reasonable that you get paid just as equally if the community
goes and removes your work.

You didn't elaborate much on your position, but I  don't buy yet your
claim of vested interests.  Who cares more about controlling
Wikipedia?  Some nationalist who spends his every free moment working
without pay to shape Wikipedias coverage, or some working person
punching a time clock and writing a bunch of material selected by
someone else?