4 ms·

The Wikimedia Foundation (which runs Wikipedia) does not directly pay editors for content. oka.wiki is a non-profit organization that funds editors, mostly to t

by jjmarr 2y ago

The Wikimedia Foundation (which runs Wikipedia) does not directly pay editors for content. oka.wiki is a non-profit organization that funds editors, mostly to translate articles. Their top 3 articles in English: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsala_of_Wala_in_the_Nsongo_District https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsala_of_Wala_in_the_Nsongo_Di... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vril_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vril_Society * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga_and_anime_fandom_in_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga_and_anime_fandom_in_Pola...

esperent 2y ago
What makes these their top articles?
- cbsks 2y ago
  https://oka.wiki/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/OKA-2024-Annual-Report.pdf https://oka.wiki/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/OKA-2024-Annual-... Those are the 3 most viewed articles created by OKA editors in 2024
qingcharles 2y ago
Wikipedia has decent cash reserves. I wonder what the impact would be if they actively paid people to add/improve content instead of praying for volunteers, especially in certain areas where there is a lack of volunteers?
- iterance 2y ago
  There are labor law concerns. It is very unwise to be paying people to do for you what others do for you for free. As the boundary between a volunteer and employee blurs, the difference between paid and unpaid labor must remain clear and well-defined, or one risks running afoul of the law. As a general practice, it's liable to devalue volunteer contributions. Money poisons the good will of a free exchange in the mind of a volunteer. Strict remuneration policies are an important part of making volunteer labor feel fair, free, and balanced. I suspect there would be room for targeted bounties on specific articles, but it would nevertheless irrevocably alter the emotional economy of contribution. A 3rd party paying editors introduces a host of other concerns, but is probably not as harmful to the emotional economy. But I'm sure Wikimedia's community team has thoroughly discussed this topic.
  - echelon 2y ago
    > There are labor law concerns. It is very unwise to be paying people to do for you what others do for you for free. Wikipedia could fund Oka or other organizations. That places the responsibility in the hands of a third party. As long as Wikipedia remains hands-off, then there is no bias or unfairness on the part of Wikipedia. > As a general practice, it's liable to devalue volunteer contributions. > A 3rd party paying editors introduces a host of other concerns, but is probably not as harmful to the emotional economy. Perhaps. But it seems like Oka will proceed anyway. I suppose one analogue we can look to is Linux Kernel contributions. Many of the contributors are on the payroll of tech companies, though some contributors are simply volunteers. There can be a tremendous amount of emotional stress and drama in open source contribution. So you're probably right about that bit. But the community does work and software still gets made.
    - darkwater 2y ago
      > Wikipedia could fund Oka or other organizations. That places the responsibility in the hands of a third party. As long as Wikipedia remains hands-off, then there is no I don't agree. Let say that Wikimedia Foundation founds OKA, and OKA pays freelancers to systematically edit/moderate content with a certain political view, or a strong bias towards a certain religion. I would keep Wikimedia Foundation accountable just as if they did it directly.
    - iterance 2y ago
      > Wikipedia could fund Oka or other organizations. It's possible, though I do not know if this is sufficient to cover their legal risk in this scenario. Likely it would require analysis of details beyond what could be reasoned through in hypothetical.
  - joseda-hg 2y ago
    Isn't there precedent with Firefighters?
    - iterance 2y ago
      Firefighting in the US is not (generally?) done by private corporations.
- colechristensen 2y ago
  Wikipedia editing is a kind of game. Adding money as an incentive could have bad effects, there are already some concerns about the politics between editors.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  Wikimedia sponsors librarians at various universities to share their knowledge and improve content. But that's in collaboration with the institution more than the individual. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_residence https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_residence Wikimedia also sponsors various outreach initiatives to get people into editing. If you're in a major city you can probably attend a physical event to learn how to edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup They don't directly pay specific editors because it'd conflict with the volunteer nature of editing and start a lot of drama.

by jjmarr 2y ago

esperent 2y ago

What makes these their top articles?

cbsks 2y ago
https://oka.wiki/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/OKA-2024-Annual-Report.pdf https://oka.wiki/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/OKA-2024-Annual-... Those are the 3 most viewed articles created by OKA editors in 2024

qingcharles 2y ago

Wikipedia has decent cash reserves. I wonder what the impact would be if they actively paid people to add/improve content instead of praying for volunteers, especially in certain areas where there is a lack of volunteers?

iterance 2y ago
There are labor law concerns. It is very unwise to be paying people to do for you what others do for you for free. As the boundary between a volunteer and employee blurs, the difference between paid and unpaid labor must remain clear and well-defined, or one risks running afoul of the law. As a general practice, it's liable to devalue volunteer contributions. Money poisons the good will of a free exchange in the mind of a volunteer. Strict remuneration policies are an important part of making volunteer labor feel fair, free, and balanced. I suspect there would be room for targeted bounties on specific articles, but it would nevertheless irrevocably alter the emotional economy of contribution. A 3rd party paying editors introduces a host of other concerns, but is probably not as harmful to the emotional economy. But I'm sure Wikimedia's community team has thoroughly discussed this topic.
- echelon 2y ago
  > There are labor law concerns. It is very unwise to be paying people to do for you what others do for you for free. Wikipedia could fund Oka or other organizations. That places the responsibility in the hands of a third party. As long as Wikipedia remains hands-off, then there is no bias or unfairness on the part of Wikipedia. > As a general practice, it's liable to devalue volunteer contributions. > A 3rd party paying editors introduces a host of other concerns, but is probably not as harmful to the emotional economy. Perhaps. But it seems like Oka will proceed anyway. I suppose one analogue we can look to is Linux Kernel contributions. Many of the contributors are on the payroll of tech companies, though some contributors are simply volunteers. There can be a tremendous amount of emotional stress and drama in open source contribution. So you're probably right about that bit. But the community does work and software still gets made.
  - darkwater 2y ago
    > Wikipedia could fund Oka or other organizations. That places the responsibility in the hands of a third party. As long as Wikipedia remains hands-off, then there is no I don't agree. Let say that Wikimedia Foundation founds OKA, and OKA pays freelancers to systematically edit/moderate content with a certain political view, or a strong bias towards a certain religion. I would keep Wikimedia Foundation accountable just as if they did it directly.
  - iterance 2y ago
    > Wikipedia could fund Oka or other organizations. It's possible, though I do not know if this is sufficient to cover their legal risk in this scenario. Likely it would require analysis of details beyond what could be reasoned through in hypothetical.
- joseda-hg 2y ago
  Isn't there precedent with Firefighters?
  - iterance 2y ago
    Firefighting in the US is not (generally?) done by private corporations.
colechristensen 2y ago
Wikipedia editing is a kind of game. Adding money as an incentive could have bad effects, there are already some concerns about the politics between editors.
jjmarr 2y ago
Wikimedia sponsors librarians at various universities to share their knowledge and improve content. But that's in collaboration with the institution more than the individual. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_residence https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_residence Wikimedia also sponsors various outreach initiatives to get people into editing. If you're in a major city you can probably attend a physical event to learn how to edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup They don't directly pay specific editors because it'd conflict with the volunteer nature of editing and start a lot of drama.