What is Digg?76 Comments
- peaches017, on 12/04/2007, -10/+133I don't like it. It was kind of cool knowing that Wikipedia got this huge / successful / amazing without any contributors being paid.
- AXNJAXN, on 12/04/2007, -2/+105The headline isn't really accurate. It's illustrators who are being paid, not people who contribute text to the wiki pages.
- koven, on 12/04/2007, -8/+87Wikipedia is easily the best website on the internet in my opinion. No offence Digg.
I hope it goes from strength to strength. - deltawk, on 12/04/2007, -4/+40I really hope this doesn't corrupt the site. Wikipedia was founded upon the principle that people could edit knowing that they would receive no monetary re-compensation.
- HunterTV, on 12/04/2007, -2/+36Looks like it's limited to skilled illustrators.
Call me crazy but I think Wikipedia needs to address video sometime in the future. There are plenty of concepts and abstractions that could be better explained or illustrated with video. That's something that no print encyclopedia has. Maybe this will eventually help spur the creation of original video content or acquisition of quality existing video content. - berb, on 12/04/2007, -1/+27I don't see the big deal. They're not paying people to write articles, they're paying people to draw high-quality illustrations that will complement the already written articles.
- Chaulis, on 12/04/2007, -1/+22I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one side you have some motivation now for illustrators to submit accurate images to Wikipedia, which is good because it will improve the quality of the site, and ensure accurateness in the articles that this is done for. But on the other hand it's opening up the can of worms for those people who will say "Hey I contributed such and such article/image, I should get paid too!" and then you have people taking things down out of spite for not getting paid the $40 for it, or reserving the 'good stuff' for payment. Another point of contention that I worry about is, does this mean that the people who run Wikipedia are now editors and responsible for the content on there?
- tdave365, on 12/04/2007, -0/+15An ex boss of mine, a behavioral specialist actually, once detailed a story wherein a mental patient at a hospital was always collecting towels around the ward. For some reason it was considered a nuisance, and the psychologists, in an oddly indirect way of attempting to curb the behavior, thought about it and decided to arrange payments to her for her "work" at towel collection. After a period of time where she received regular pay for her efforts, they then stopped payments, claiming a budget shortfall or some such other malady. The patient objected, as you are probably guessing, by "refusing" to collect anymore towels.
The "problem" was considered solved. - KamikazeeDriver, on 12/04/2007, -1/+13I agree. At least it's just the illustrators, and not just any moron who submits text. There used to be alot of those, trying to pass off their opinions as fact.
- chaparyan, on 12/04/2007, -1/+12how many times do I have to click? I was promised free sex videos! ;-)
- synce, on 12/04/2007, -5/+14They could probably do it, but it wouldn't be free. The guys behind Wikipedia need a ***** of donations just to keep the site alive as it is.
- EdThomson, on 12/04/2007, -1/+10No offence taken.
-Digg. - Darth_tater, on 12/04/2007, -1/+9why is synce being dugg down? Wikipedia is a very popular website and requires a tremendous amount of donations to pay its bills. increased video bandwidth would just add more complexity and cost to an already awesome site.
- Lnet, on 12/04/2007, -0/+7I think they should have done what the guy from MIT thought - only pay $5 for illustrations - not $40! Wikipedia could have many good illustrations without spending such a large amount on each one thus making much less of them.
- kweeky, on 12/04/2007, -0/+7You buried his post because he said "*****"?
- WorldGroove, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5I'm glad it's only illistrators with artwork... not actually text content that can be influenced by cash.
Don't let the actual info get mixed up with money; it'll end Wiki. - arjie, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4There are some really cool .gif animations, some which explain an idea brilliantly. Look at the tesseract article for instance. Unfortunately, that illustrator passed away, he's done some very nice small animations that explain ideas well.
- twertyto, on 12/04/2007, -2/+6Greed corrupts.
- MrViklund, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4I don't agree with this "Finally!"
Wikipedia is a free tool. Free to read, edit and contribute. There is no such thing that Wikipedia has to pay contributors. THey do not have to contribute. No one has to. But. This might be a great way to pay the best contributors. But there is nothing "Finally!" over it. People have added content for free for years in their spare time. They would not have done that if they wanted to get payed. - whataboutdave, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3This is just a modest fee, and those illustrations must be quite time consuming. As long as no one feels entitled to pay, I have no problem with it.
- dungar, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4wikipedia is full of *****, as are its admins
- gnick, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3I've never understood some people's inflated offense in response to profanity. Granted, those words are typically unnecessary and something else COULD be substituted if you wanted to dilute your point to appease the socially conservative. But, the notion that network TV is perfectly free to show one guy unloading a pistol into another guy's chest but risks a fine for showing a guy calling somebody a *****-head baffles me.
If it's a big problem, digg has a profanity filter. Use it. - inactive, on 12/04/2007, -3/+6RTFA. Illustrations only.
- RonBurgundy76, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3I dugg down johnparkman's reply because of his sanctimonious attitude. I don't know about everyone else, but I have this bad habit of burying comments from pretentious posters that think we give a damn whether they were offended or not. I'm not in a bad mood, but I reported it as being offensive. Welcome to America. I can say '*****' on the internets if I want to. Have a nice day.
- JPOOPOO, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3wrong article dumbass
- dext3r, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3I can't click there. :(
- sekhui, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2shut the ***** up slock. it's as accurate as any other tertiary source, and a great "jumping-off point" for any research you may be doing. if you work at a nuclear reactor and it's going critical, yes, you might want to try a primary source. but that criticism applies to any tertiary reference work, printed or not.
- snikt, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3Very cool, I do love seeing decent technical illustrations and if it takes off it could well be a big bump up for Wikipedia.
The headline was a little misleading though. - jacquesm, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2I agree very much with you. HowStuffWorks.com is another site that went that route and it totally lost it's audience because of that. (and it's reputation). Now its just another product placement website.
- j10s, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2i'm reporting johnparkman
- chedabob, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2How old are you? Six?
- alexforcefive, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3Either are acceptable
- KirbyMeister, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Actually he has 6 buries.
- Bamborzled, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2Maybe somebody at Wikipedia can illustrate a "FAIL" picture for you.
- Cloned, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1I was going to block cutedawxa, but I crack up every time I see his failed spam attempts. I think I'll keep him around for laughs.
- JPOOPOO, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1The kind of people who think like that wouldn't have their work on Wikipedia to begin with.
- xvrlax, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1If wikipedia ever begins paying people for more than just photos, then those big 6 on the secret emailing list are really going to have a field-day with people outside their ring contributing to the website.
- MrViklund, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Accurate or not. Its still a source young man.
- nephilimx, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1I cant wait to see mods paying themselves 40bucks for putting there penis pics on the genitals page :P
- TnTBass, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1You're crazy.
- BHSPitMonkey, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1"$20 can buy many peanuts!"
- Mullits, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Where do I sign up?
- RonBurgundy76, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1$40 is a lot of money in some countries, though... keep that in mind.
- BHSPitMonkey, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Exploiting poverty, why, what a wonderful idea!
- photodigg, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1It seems as though illustrators will need to do the work first, and then only those chosen will be paid. That makes sense, but it is not exactly the best situation since artists are creating the work "on spec." I have no good answer to this because Wikipedia is not a commercial publisher and that makes it a tricky subject.
Andrew Darlow, Editor - The Imaging Buffet - www.imagingbuffet.com - 9mmOnline, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1if it puts 500 quality illustrations up and encourages more people to contribute it can only be a good thing.
- techobo, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1While $40 is better than nothing, it is more of an insult than compensation. I think they should keep it free. If they are in need of professional illustrators, why not pay them professional wages instead of treating their work like a high school art fair project? If illustrators want to draw something for you free of charge, good for them, but I don't know how many people are going to jump on the idea of rendering complex diagrams at less than minimum wage.
- Lnet, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1If you read the article fully you would see that they were referring to people from India or Romania. In those countries $5 is a lot. If people there make that much in a week I think that "5 measly bucks" would be more than sufficient for them.
- chancelcc, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0Does what is "accurate" and "correct" not matter anymore? Isn't the point of citing some as a source to show the validity and truthfulness of that source and also to show the validity and truthfulness of the claim that you are making?
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is