zlacker

I agree, but with a warchest of $400m, their budget can seemingly be funded at 2.5% withdrawal per year, so there may be no need to ask anymore. (Though personally I'd rather they spent even more and had more full time editors and researchers improving the site.)

>>peterc+(OP)
> more full time editors and researchers

By "full-time" you mean paid?

Researchers can't contribute to Wikipedia at all, unless the "research" consists of a literature review.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

And if there were full-time paid editors, I'd stop editing immediately, and instead contribute my efforts to the fork that would inevitably result.

>>peterc+(OP)
You're labouring under a severe misconception. Wikipedia is written and curated by unpaid volunteers. The Wikimedia Foundation itself "does not write or curate any of the content found on the projects":

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/10/05/a-victory-for-free-kno...

>>denton+62
Yeah, I didn't mean original or scientific research, more working on missing citations, integrating information from newly discovered original sources, or maybe even attempting to discover such original sources. I guess Wikipedians prefer to call this editing!

With the foundation's resources and clout, someone working on their behalf may be able to get better access to many source materials.

And if there were full-time paid editors, I'd stop editing immediately

So, I'm guessing you know a lot about Wikipedia.. but aren't there already full-time paid editors, just not from the foundation? I struggle to believe there are not well funded interests out there investing money into improving Wikipedia (whether such improvements are objective or subjective) in the same way that some tech companies fund, say, programming language core teams.

>>peterc+zc
Sure, there are paid editors performing PR services on Wikipedia (both above-board, declared, and flying under the radar, undeclared).

What the WMF does do at times is fund community "organizers" trying to get unpaid volunteer editors to work on its content. See e.g.:

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/09/22/join-the-organizer-lab...

Direct editing paid for by the Foundation was tried once, with bad results:

https://thewikipedian.net/2014/04/02/bats-in-the-belfer-a-be...

>>peterc+zc
> may be able to get better access to many source materials.

As an established Wikipedia editor, you can sign-up for free access to a variety of source materials that "civilians" would have to pay for. You don't have to be employed by Wikimedia.

> but aren't there already full-time paid editors, just not from the foundation?

There are two kinds of paid editor: people who are employed by WMF, and also edit (but they're not actually paid to edit, at least in theory); and lobbyists, reputation-managers, marketing consultants and so on, who are allowed to edit within limits. Personally I would like those pluggers removed with extreme prejudice, but WP is very relaxed about these things.

>>akolbe+Sf
Interesting story in that last link, thanks.

I guess what I was thinking more of was philanthropic organizations paying mathematicians, geologists, and various other types of academic to improve the quality of Wikipedia's entries on a full time basis. Maybe I am being hopefully naive about the allocation of capital though, and thinking merely the sort of things I'd like to fund if I were a billionaire.. ;-)

>>peterc+(OP)
There are no full time paid editors and that would severely distort the character and incentives of the encyclopedia.