So, during the last site update article, a discussion came up talking about how those who work and write for this site should get paid for said work. I've always wanted to get us to the point where we could cut a check to the contributors of SoylentNews, but as it stands, subscriptions more or less let us keep the lights on and that's about it.
As I was writing and responding to one specific thread, part of me started to wonder if there would be enough interest to try and crowdfund articles on specific topics. In general, meta articles in which we talk deploying HSTS or our use of Hesiod tend to generate a lot of interest. So, I wanted to try and see if there was an opportunity to both generate interesting content, and help get some funds back to those who donate their time to keep the lights on.
One idea that immediately comes to mind that I could write is deploying DNSSEC in the real world, and an active example of how it can help mitigate hijack attacks against misconfigured domains. Alternatively, on a retro-computing angle, I could cook something in 16-bit real mode assembly that can load an article from soylentnews.org. I could also do a series on doing (mostly) bare metal work; i.e., loading an article from PXE boot or UEFI.
However, before I get in too deep into building this idea, I want to see how the community feels about it. My initial thought is that the funds raised for a given article would dictate how long it would be, and the revenue would be split between the author, and the staff, with the staff section being divided at the end of the year as even as possible. The program would be open to any SN contributor. If the community is both interested and willing, I'll organize a staff meeting and we'll do a trial run to see if the idea is viable. If it flies, then we'll build out the system to be a semi-regular feature of the site
As always, leave your comments below, and we'll all be reading ...
For those too young to recognize the name, imagine Bennett Haselton being paid for what he contributes to the other site.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
Hey, just because you don't understand the capabilities of the Commodore 64, does make him a total idiot.
Did you dislike Jon Katz' postings on Slashdot (where he stylised his name as "JonKatz")? The GP says "the green site doesn't pay submitters" which may imply that Slashdot didn't pay Jon Katz. Am I wrong about that? Elsewhere, Jon Katz does write for pay. I suspect that he posted on Slashdot because it was a high-traffic site, not because he was paid to do so.
Are you of the opinion that writing done for pay is typically of a lower quality than writing done for free? I'm certain that giving money to writers will attract writing that some readers will dislike. However it is likely to also attract some writing that at least some readers want to see. If payments bring on a flood of shit, perhaps the site's operators will discern that and shut down the experiment.
some pages I didn't read carefully:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Katz [wikipedia.org]https://slashdot.org/story/99/03/20/2059255/running-to-the-internet-california-chapter-two [slashdot.org]http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1999/03/25.html [theobvious.com]http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/technology/afghan-e-mail-seen-as-too-geek-to-be-true.html [nytimes.com]
I do remember some extended (sub)threads that railed about the submitter of the item (Katz).It seemed to me that he was a paid staffer and that Slashdotters expected better quality from him.Perhaps my perceptions were wrong and it was that the vitriol was so thick that left an undue impression on me.