Cavers using Wikipedia

[L Roebuck]

At Wikipedia, Illustrators May Be Paid
By NOAM COHEN, The New York Times

The foundation that runs Wikipedia has finally agreed to pay contributors to the online encyclopedia a modest fee for their work. But it won’t pay the thousands of people who participate in creating the wiki pages — just artists who create “key illustrations” for the site.

The payments are made possible by a $20,000 donation from Philip Greenspun, who said he was moved to give the money because of his experience seeing technical books he had originally published online appear in print.

“In comparing the Web versions to the print versions, I noticed that the publishers’ main contribution to the quality of the books was in adding professionally drawn illustrations,” he wrote in an e-mail message. “It occurred to me that when the dust settled on the Wikipedia versus Britannica question, the likely conclusion would be ‘Wikipedia is more up to date; Britannica has better illustrations.’”

The woman running the project for Wikipedia, Brianna Laugher, says the plan is to create a list of articles that need illustrations and then solicit the work. The first list is expected to have 50 illustrations and be completed this month. Contributors will be able to sign up for an illustration and have two weeks to submit it; if it is accepted, the illustrator will be paid $40.

Full Text

[Brian Roebuck]

Well that's nice for some folks I guess. Forty bucks is better than nothing but I thought the idea of Wikipedia was for people to share knowledge etc freely. I don't think this is such a good idea. from that stand point.

[Azurerana]

pretzlgirl said:

At Wikipedia, Illustrators May Be Paid
By NOAM COHEN, The New York Times

“In comparing the Web versions to the print versions, I noticed that the publishers’ main contribution to the quality of the books was in adding professionally drawn illustrations,” he wrote in an e-mail message. “It occurred to me that when the dust settled on the Wikipedia versus Britannica question, the likely conclusion would be ‘Wikipedia is more up to date; Britannica has better illustrations.’”

Britannica is also more accurate, which is why they charge for access. I've found some really inaccurate zingers on Wikipedia.

The question is: why should artists be paid, but writers not? What guarantee does Wiki have that tens of thousands of 'commissioned' graphics weren't themselves plaigarised? I mean, there are some things that are best illustrated only one way. Also...what does the payment do to the copyright of the artwork? (I get paid in this range for some of the articles I do, but for first time print rights only-- the copyright doesn't change hands. )

I think I'd pass on this one for now.

[L Roebuck]

I imagine they have not even given a thought to paying the writers - afterall they have plenty of people who write Wikipedia articles for ' free '. Just imagine if Wikipedia had to pay all the contributors to the online encyclopedia, it would be a large expense for the company.

[Azurerana]

Wikipedia has one big downfall, in my opinion. The rules for posting topics say no original work or research. This tends to chop off both ends of the spectrum of knowledge -- both the total quacks and the truly erudite. This promotes mediocrity. For example: under these rules, were he alive today, Albert Einstein would be forbidden on posting about relativity. In reality, Einstein wrote one of the best books explaining his theory in plain English. I've been tempted several times to write an article on surface travertine (tufa) or edit the tufa article out there, but cannot, because I did the research I would relate (some in books, some in the field.)
Real encyclopedias (not wiki) get their information from experts, and then have their writers smooth out contorted prose if if needed. They send articles out to be vetted by experts.

Just imagine if we had an online encyclopedia written by experts in their fields: Yo Yo Ma on music, an article on the Pentagon written by the Chiefs of Staff, an article on how to walk on the moon by Neil Armstrong. We spend lots of money a year to buy autobiographies, buy histories by people who were reporters on the field (for example: William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich-- Shirer was a European theater war correspondent, just like John Hershey wrote later about the South Pacific because he was there. All would be excluded from Wikipedia.

[Brad Tipton]

azurerana said:

Wikipedia has one big downfall, in my opinion. The rules for posting topics say no original work or research. This tends to chop off both ends of the spectrum of knowledge -- both the total quacks and the truly erudite and promote mediocrity. For example: under these rules, were he alive today, Albert Einstein would be forbidden on posting about relativity. In reality, Einstein wrote one of the best books explaining his theory in plain English. I've been tempted several times to write an article on surface travertine (tufa) or edit the tufa article out there, but cannot, because I did the research I would relate (some in books, some in the field.)
Real encyclopedias (not wiki) get their information from experts, and then have their writers smooth out contorted prose if if needed. They send articles out to be vetted by experts.

Just imagine if we had an online encyclopedia written by experts in their fields: Yo Yo Ma on music, an article on the Pentagon written by the Chiefs of Staff, an article on how to walk on the moon by Neil Armstrong. We spend lots of money a year to buy autobiographies, buy histories by people who were reporters on the field (for example: William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich-- Shirer' was a European theater war correspondent, just like John Hershey wrote about the South Pacific because he was there. All would be excluded from Wikipedia.

I agree.....not specifically because I have original personal research but that Wikpedia requires online references. Depending on what your subject matter is you may or may not be able to provide online references. That can make a Wiki project rather frustrating. Without the references the page is flagged and subject to deletion.

In short if you want to do a whole page on STAR WARS terms.....no problem......the internet has a 100 million websites dedicated to STAR WARS everything. If you want to be a little more creative you better have some references.