Talk:May 2011 Update/pt
- [History↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Em pt | 1 | 20:31, 24 May 2011 |
| It will be hard, but possible recovering credibility with editors | 2 | 03:43, 9 May 2011 |
Estranho, um link na wiki-pt me encaminhou pra cá, uma pág. em inglês. Se vc chegou até aqui na leitura responda se eu posso editar em pt aqui. rs. Amats 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ting Cheng,
The Wiki credibility with common sense is fantastic, but we can't say it about editors. If not, you directors aren't exposing the Wiki Foundation into this process to fix several problems, serious at all.
I'm trying write this text with calm, but my feelings were hurt deeply, cause the administrators, bots, supervisors (and other bodies think themselves like owners or partners of a business that everybody is out) treat editors like an intruder.
In extreme cases, my own profile was modified in order to not appearing the abuses by this guys (AND NOT REGISTERED IN VIEW HISTORY). My discussions with administrators were delected, about contents/subjects' simple desagreements (AND NOT REGISTERED IN VIEW HISTORY). I was retaliated MANY TIMES in sume, even saying bibliographic sources.
I think the elections in Wikipedia cannot be decided by every users. For example, someone is a lider in the very big school for childrens. So he asks for everybody to create a Wikipedia login, and he gains 2.000 votes. But he is only a twelve years old child, deciding what's true or false, right or wrong about science, arts, humanaties, etc. What do you think about this? In another exemple, a man with poor instruction and very deep influencial in local politics asks for everybody to create an account. Again, we have the same situation: he is in the great position, but not ready to judge if the modernity is a period or not, if the reality is a mind projection or solid indeed, but he's gonna disseminate his prejudices!!
How can the Wiki Foundation fix this problem? I don't know, cause the solution seems no-democratic. But I ask for you all consider that democracy doesn't work in all cases (in the family, for example, the democracy is very atypical, even we can ask if there is a democracy indeed).
The second problem, equal in relevance, is the no-pay editings. It's not fair you four or six directors perceive milions dollars, but not share with who really gives to you a chance to take this capital: the editors. You may create a payment per character: $ 0,023809524, for example (0,023809524 x 2.100 characters = US$ 50). You can pay by PayPal, moneybookers, etc. Here I know if you really desire a Wiki-dream you tell us always, or just a permanent lie for editors, seduced by loving discourses, make you a very import, rich and influential people worldwire, but saying only "thank you, we love you. Please, keep editing in Wikipedia to my satisfaction and enrichment. You are very important to us".
I think you can choose administrator, based to knowledge areas (not only scientific). For example, eletronic games: who is in REAL LIFE an expert in it (experience PROVED by blogs, sites, curriculum, employments, etc.)? A simple 12 or 15 years child with a super-site? Great, that's it!!! So he/she is an administrator ONLY for this area (you have the categories to help you for it). Other possibility is you give a 10 bodies list, and the people votes. No administrators to style, writing, etc, cause the administrator for this knowledge area (or category) must be able to do this revision. At last for this paragraph, the editing HAS TO BE AVAIBLE ONLY TO EXPERTS, previously registered like this (and confirmed by Wiki Foundation). If I wanna say anything about games (I'm not an expert!), so I have to put my speech on "Discussion" for capaciting editors in this area judge my opinion.
The anonyment in Wiki Foundation is bad: no discussion!!! Who says the comunism is good, or the right (politics) is good, or the masonary is terrible? Is a teacher? A researcher? No, it's only a yankee guess control the world, unless the Wikipedia, cause his arrogance! I saw the article Parnassianism sufering vandalism by schoolboys inciting by easy learning-strategies! What do you think about those things? So, nicknames might be forbidden (accept only civil names). If you prefer, the signature continues out the article, seen through "view history" (and you can keep the hipertext by many bodies KNOW about the subject).
I'm very sure with this suggestions, the Wikipedia will have NO PROBLEM with editors and a BETTER QUALITY in all articles.
Hope I do NOT spend my time again.
Hey Camillo,
Thank you very much for spending the time to say what you're thinking, it's exactly what we want. I'm really sorry to hear that you've had so many bad experiences with the project, this is exactly one of the things that we want to try and track down and improve. People should never feel attacked. If you want to get a hold of me privately (my contact info is on my user page) I'll be happy to try and get you in touch with a volunteer to try and figure out what happened. There are a lot of things to think about as options to improve the projects and personally I think the Foundation can have a very active hand in trying to help with that. Of course the other side of the coin is that the projects also govern themselves, every editor or administrator or advanced permissions holder is a volunteer and together they run the projects, the Wikimedia Foundation tries to make their lives as easy as possible, keep the sites up and in general help where ever we can. We need to look at everything and come up with ideas (like you've been doing) and try to see what's going to help stem the tide.
I'm sure you know that almost all the money the Foundation gets is from donations and, in the end, it's very small for the size of the site that's being run. You may not know that the Board of Trustees does not get paid at all. They're also volunteers. The money that's collected is used to help operate the sites and pay the (really quite small) staff of the Wikimedia Foundation. Trying to find ways to motivate editors is enormously important but I'm not sure that payment is the way to go. Even if all of the money we collected last year was given out to editors we wouldn't be able to come close to paying anything close to reasonable to our 10's of thousands of editors. That of course doesn't mean we don't need ways to show how much volunteers are worth, because they really are the projects.
Hi, Jalexander,
Thank you for your invitation to talk in your page.
Sorry about the last phrase on the discussion, but you all have been absent 6 years at least, in Portuguese Wiki.
Maybe a minor value to the character would be possible, even a symbolic value (2.100 characters = US$ 5). Believe me, every editor will be happy with any payment. Like you said, "the editors are the projects". About the quantity of editors - I guess is the same in English Wiki - is swelling, by ambition. Many editors change a synonimous to keep voting. This kind of editing means no good, what reforces my thesis: "no sytle editors". We're gonna loose the real style revisors, but we can stop the oportunists. When they're gone, so the payment for editors turns too easier.
The statistic on your user is a fiction, cause the oportunists, which change a simple comma, guess everything is wonderful. So they can vote in the hypothetical "yankee guy" I told you.
