Commons talk:Paid contribution disclosure policy

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

See: Commons:Requests for comment/Alternative paid contribution disclosure policy

Translate tags[edit]

I didn't check if it already does, but please ensure the excerpt from the ToU is tagged exactly as it is on Meta, to benefit from cross-wiki translation memory. --Nemo 11:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You can edit the page. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I find it a bit pointless to quote it in full as "context" and have translated here. Why not suffice to link to ToU? whym (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
See @Steinsplitter:'s comment above :) -Pete F (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree; it overwhelms our new policy, and is likely to be mistaken for it by new readers. Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Except there's an edit notice asking people not to, without reaching consensus here first. Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hm, well I have not noticed that edit notice (it doesn't seem to appear when I click "edit," I'm not sure why I would get a different result). But I'm happy to state, I think such a notice is silly, if it is written in a way that refers to the contextual information around a policy in addition to the policy text itself. I certainly wouldn't expect people to adhere to a directive like that. I'm all for collaborative improvement, it's what I like about wikis. -Pete F (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What are considered contributions?[edit]

Are we to draw a distinction between contributions as an editor or is this directed just at uploads? Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems they include every "edit", uploads, admin/non-admin actions like delete, revert, block, etc. Jee 02:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
So, editors who are paid for their contributions to Commons can also participate in setting policy, guidelines and the like? Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes; and they can even make a sanction on people who try to stop them. There seems a clear consensus for it, unfortunately. Jee 03:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I thought it worth discussing with a broader audience: Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A good place to discuss possible problems, caveats, considerations etc. is here: Commons talk:Guidance for paid editors -Pete F (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That discussion opened on 26 Jun and was closed on 28 Jun. Rush to judgment. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Observation... I pointed to a venue for discussion and collaboration, and you're commenting on an archive that happens to live there. -Pete F (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I am pointing out that discussion there seems fruitless because valid concerns were steamrolled in a rush to accept the policy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see the problem. I'll archive that discussion. That page is not a policy, it's an essay -- which means it's very much a malleable document. The discussion was about whether to start such a page, and what to title it -- that's why it was a quick decision, because it wasn't really about the substance of the page. It isn't even an official guideline much less a policy. So plenty of room to hash out ideas and improvements there. -Pete F (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Noted. In looking closer I think the real issue is with the policy itself not with how we implement it. The wording of the policy was compromised when they substituted in the word "contribution". Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)