Getting paid to edit Wikipedia

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolu...tration_project

It says "illustrations". And it's the Illustratuon Project Proposal. Illustrations. Not editing.

Are illustrations not part of the editing process?

Seems like a nice approach. 635 illustrations for $20,000. As always, though -- who is responsible for vetting the "accuracy" of the illustrations, or worse, determining if the creations are of a sufficient quality to merit payment?

My prediction: as with the Reward Board, they'll find that people just don't get motivated for $10 an hour.

Greg

That is dependant on your definition of editing. But this is different from the Rick Jelliffe thing. That was being paid to edit Wikipedia. This is commissioning some illustrations.

Whoever is poor and talented enough to actually create the illustrations probably won't even upload them themselves (hence, not "editing" in any way).

"Editing" or not, it is certainly content. One more argument that WMF, by actually purchasing content is a content publisher, not a service provider. I would expect WMF to argue that the donor, not WMF is paying for the pics. I guess one question becomes where are the funds immediately prior to paying the content generators?

Do you think we have to worry about defamatory or privacy invading illustrations?

I suppose it is possible, but I hope they have enough sense not to do that.

It is an interesting concept.

Someone paid US $20,000 to Wikipedia, as a "donation" to pay for illustrations.

That in itself suggests that in reality Greenspun is paying for a service.

Could it be paying for a particular kind of service too?

If I was Greenspun, I would want them to be a certain kind of picture, perhaps even to promote the kind of ideas that I have.

Even if it is not some sneaky underhanded kickback kind of thing, Wikipedia is still getting money and using it with an aim that the donor requested. That's not exactly charity if the donors get to decide what you do with their money.

Actually, if you make a request of a charity to have the money spent a certain way when you make the donation, the charity is legally bound to spend the money as you have requested. Many large donations have specifics attached to make sure the money is spent where the donor thinks it will serve the best.

Rembember Brain Peppers. How many AfDs did that take?

Oh sorry, my mistake. Thanks for the correction.

So is Wikipedia doing anything wrong then?

I forget, but I know the GNAA article has been to more AFDs and DRVs than Daniel Brandt's article. On any given day it can either be alive or deleted.



In this particular case, as Mr. Kohs pointed out, it all depends how the money is spent and who gets the cut. I have a feeling this will come back to bite 'em.

I think this is a very good move, assuming these images are actually worth $20,000 dollars. They should do more of this; I think showing people a way that donations can be used to directly benefit the encyclopedia itself would encourage more people to donate.

Could someone donate $20,000 on the provision that their biography is undeleted? Or that MONGO, Jayjg and SlimVirgin are permabanned? Requiring any kind of specific "this is what you spend the money on" provision is the thin end of the wedge.

Hopefully Greenspun has no expectation on exactly what images get created.

I think this is an excellent move, but not for the same reasons that EK believes. Ultimately, this wholly idiotic hostility to the fair use doctrine on WP stems from the dictats of Der Jimbo, which I'm sure have nothing to do with the fact that The Purveyor of the Sum of Human Knowledge used to sell copyrighted "erotic" images on internets, which venture eventually tanked. Nothing, I say! NOTHING WHATSOEVER!! BAN ALL WHO EVEN SUGGEST OTHERWISE!!! WE HAVE ENDURED THESE WORTHLESS TROLLS LONG ENOUGH!!!! EXTERMINATE!!!!! EXTERMINATE!!!!!! (Er, excuse me for that last bit. I'm not entirely well. I may have caught a bit of the Jimbo Flu.)

Back on point: the reason that this is such a lovely development is that every donated dollar that is expended in the legally unnecessary enterprise of purchasing fair use images is another dollar unavailable for server costs, staff costs, office overhead, etc. As Greg Kohs has noted in other threads, the 2007 fundraiser isn't going so well. The more money that is siphoned off to this idiocy, the better.

Hasten The Day!

Exterminate? Are you sure you haven't turned into a Dalek?

Maybe for a bit. Perhaps the ultimate symptom of the Jimbo Flu.