Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-12-10/News and notes

Discuss this story

My experience has not found paying / offering to pay people to edit is effective. WikEmerg was paying $600-1000 per article and had limited success. See here for further details [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding from very limited German and a Google Translation is that the project is to explore how to help the community deal effectively with paid editors, rather than develop ways to enable paid editing with donor funds. The commentary in the Signpost was a little vague I think. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the evaluation is wide-ranging and one of the explicit goals is for example that at the end "a written handout for various stakeholders (Communications agencies, GLAM cooperation partners, communications experts of businesses) how and to which extend they can operate in Wikipedia" (no. 10) has to exist and there is also a workshop to bring paid editors and the community together (no. 4). both are also explicitly included in the evaluation framework and there is a Euro15,000 budget for the "get together"-workshop. Therefore, I think the Signpost got "evaluating" quite right - after all, it is not claimed to solve the issue once and for all, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really the case that "every year frustration boils over in candidates and others who watch the election closely"? If so, those people need to go for a walk around the block! ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is SRS BSNS. Reso lute 14:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is happening, and is "working". 99% of it is covert and is being coordinated on other sites. Gigs (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It takes €81,000 to investigate paid editing? That seems like a lot of money. I hope some good things come out of it at least. Kaldari (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" KPMG states in the document that it represents the financial position "fairly, in all material respects" and that the year ended in "conformity with US generally accepted accounting standards"." This is not news; ALL US audit reports say this, except the ones that don't - now they are news. Reporting on these matters is a legal requirement, and this is "dog bites man". Put something, anything, in instead, like a couple of key figures. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]