Comments for Wikipedia to Pay Illustrators

Wikipedia to Pay Illustrators

2007-12-03T18:23:21Z

Wikipedia is formulating a plan to pay contributors of selected illustrations, according to a report this morning in the NYT. It's a big move, in principle at least, away from the site's longstanding all-volunteer content creation. Backers of the plan, however, say it's a vital step that must be taken in order for Wikipedia to close the quality gap with print reference materials. Scientific articles in particular are not getting the volunteer illustration they need with the current model.

The plan is reportedly being funded by a donation from MIT Prof. Philip Greenspun. Greenspun says he gave made a $20,000 donation earmarked specifically for paying illustrators but was envisioning $5 payments to illustrators in the developing world instead of Wikipedia's stated plan to pay $40 per illustration. Greenspun says no one from Wikipedia has contacted him since his check cleared.

This sounds like a great idea to me. I presume some Wikipedia purists will argue against it and it could lead to some kind of slippery slope - but I expect the program to run smoothly in time. It reminds me of sports blogging site Sportingo's mixed model of free user generated content augmented with licensed sports images and statistical databases. Wikipedia already has a fascinating Graphics Lab department where images are improved collaboratively (for free!). I can't help but wonder about for Wikipedia is checking for copyright of visual images. That may become more difficult than it had been previously.

Comment from Peter Cooper on 2007-12-03

2007-12-03T18:55:30Z

It's easy to see why illustration hasn't taken off with the current model.

It's one thing to have text you supply changed and edited on Wikipedia. But for illustrators it's not so simple, because if someone decides to make a whole new illustration that's even a little better, yours is then gone. Unlike most forms of writing on Wikipedia (i.e. minor edits or adding a paragraph or two), illustration takes a long time to do, and if you're doing it for the love of illustration or for the fame, you won't be doing it for long if some Wikipedia editor decides it isn't appropriate, isn't in the right style, or someone else supercedes it the next day. At least with a payment you're getting something permanent (cash).

I'd probably do some illustrations for Wikipedia if I knew where they were needed, exactly what style to use, and how to work in such a way that they'd likely stay on the site for more than ten minutes.. but that's really hard to establish when you have many different editorial directions.

Comment from Justin Kistner on 2007-12-03

2007-12-03T19:01:38Z

It does open the door to a slippery slope, although I'm not sure if that's bad. As long as anyone can edit a contribution, it doesn't matter that it's paid to start with. I think it's only a problem if we can't change paid content.

If we hit a glass ceiling for volunteer contribution, would profit sharing be a viable motivation for more time-consuming contribution? Like you get paid a percentage of page-view revenue for the volume of contribution you made to that page? I know that opens up all kinds of problems, but I'm just brainstorming ideas.

Is it even necessary to pay contributors? Does a glass ceiling for contribution really exist?

Comment from Sniffy Sam in Alabama on 2007-12-03

2007-12-03T19:38:26Z

how the hell is wikipedia ever gonna coordinate that? no one can agree on anything on that circus freakshow as it is!! and now people are gonna decide who gets the 40 smackeroos? forget it. i smell doom.

and let's get real. no one will ever see that check money ever again. so long money. wikipedia is just telling lies to get people to donate. they're going down.

Comment from bittenbydesign on 2007-12-06

2007-12-06T21:17:25Z

As an illustrator, yes, I can see the draw of the money, but if it was earmarked only for scientific illustration they would still need to figure out a way of confirming the payment.

Like, is it simply the first illustration on the topic to stay unchanged for a week, or is it voted on, or is it simply the first person to drop an illustration in?

I have a feeling, when you bring money into the equation, it is going to open up a whole can of worms. I will be interested in seeing how they sort it out though.

Comment from DY on 2007-12-08

2007-12-08T23:06:43Z

Problems come up all by themselves with no one's help. I think it's a great idea for artists who want to expand their businesses. would love to see more artists get paid for their work. We are expected to donate for every cause, work cheap as dirt (like guru.com), at least this way we could get a little something for our time.