Wikipedia talk:Reward board/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Paying individual editors

In case you're unsure, yes, this page does propose payment to individual editors contingent upon completion of whatever task payment is offered for. This is a very controversial idea, as demonstrated by the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bounty board. WP:OWN and similar policies are likely to cause some trouble if one of these offers is not handled correctly.

Because of this, I have a few very basic ideas on how individual editors can be paid for their work while conflicts are avoided and the communal nature of Wikipedia remains intact:

• The employer can split the payment between all parties he feels made a substantial contribution to the article's promotion.
• The employer can pay individuals to integrate drafts submitted to him privately into the article.

etc. I know these aren't really novel, I'm just sort of brainstorming here. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 21:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

People really pay people to edit articles? Wow... --M@thwiz2020 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have to pay to have it done, it's called work. Goes against the philosophy of the project. It's Ok to make money with the outcome as per GFDL but not with the project itself. And yes, given enough money, it will violate NPOV. User:Ejrrjs says What? 16:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's quite in line with the philosophy of the project. Free/open source software, a closely aligned movement to Wikipedia, and arguably its philosophical roots, routinely has people being paid to contribute code. We had Larry Sanger as a paid editor for many years. Moreover, this will not generate POV pushing. Why would it? We simply wouldn't allow people to post such bounties. — Matt Crypto 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How would we know what the bounty actually entails? It could easily be one of those situations where the ad says one thing and the job is really another, and we'd have no idea since no oversight is possible if we're not involved in the transaction. -Colin Kimbrell 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of someone doing half the deal here and the other half somewhere else? Wouldn't said person do the complete deal where we can't see it, if it were so nefarious as to be controversial? Basically, no oversight is possible. Period. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As many security experts have noted, the illusion of safety is often more dangerous than a system with known failings. Creating a policy like this would encourage people to think that these sorts of transactions are nothing to worry about, thus decreasing the level of healthy paranoia about questionable edits. Also, providing a platform for prospective policy violators to more efficiently violate policy itself violates WP:BEANS. -Colin Kimbrell 17:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the illusion of safety is much more dangerous than a system with known failings. Hence, I say we should not pretend that people are only motivated by pure altruism and allow this page. Also, you should read BEANS more closely sometime, since it says the exact opposite of what you think it says (the BEANS interpretation of this situation is "we should not forbid paying for editing lest somebody get the idea of doing exactly that from the rule"). -- grm_wnr Esc 19:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the beans interpretation of the situation would be to create a board for pay-for-play work, then add the (absolutely necessary) lengthy disclaimers about which sorts of solicitations are not acceptable, thereby putting the idea of looking for that sort of work into people's heads in the first place. We don't need a prohibition on this either; a rejection of this proposal is not the same thing as the acceptance of a proposal banning paid contributions. -Colin Kimbrell 19:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

People also spam articles with commercial links; should we therefore create a tool for more efficient spamming on the toolserver, since it's impossible to prevent 100% of spamming? Should the governments of the world create an assassin-for-hire system because murderers occasionally escape justice? -Colin Kimbrell 19:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's agree that BEANS is not related. As for the other point, your analogies are somewhat... besides the point. I am not saying that we should create a board where people are hired to break Wikipedia policy, as you seem to be implying. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the creation of "a board where people are hired to break Wikipedia policy" is the likely outcome of this policy, regardless of the intentions of its creators. -Colin Kimbrell 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is very unlikely. Has this happened on de:? We don't need to engage in speculations here. It's already been tried. We can witness the lack of doom and destruction on the German edition. — Matt Crypto 20:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How do we know that there isn't doom and destruction on German wikipedia (since most of us can't read German), and even if there hasn't been, how do we know that there won't be in the future? You can build on a flood plain and be fine for a while, too, but that doesn't make it a good idea. -Colin Kimbrell 20:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As it is work, I assume that taxes, social security, etc. will have to be paid (depending on your location(s)). No easy feat across international borders, in any case. User:Ejrrjs says What? 19:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This, in turn, would raise issues about the anonymity of contributors and their contributions. -Colin Kimbrell 19:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, none of this would be necessary. — Matt Crypto 20:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Income is income from the IRS standpoint, isn't it? -Colin Kimbrell 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's up to the editor receiving payment to attend to his tax liabilities. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if structured so that the editor receiving payment is an individual contractor this is true, at least in the U.S. (I decline to speak to non-U.S. laws.) Individual contractor status would be fairly easy for this type of work, but we probably should have a protected terms and conditions page that an employment lawyer has drawn up. GRBerry 16:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Page blanking

This page was changed to a redirect to Wikipedia:Bounty Board earlier. Please do not blank pages with substantive content without discussion first. This page has a purpose distinct from the Wikipedia:Bounty Board, as discussed above. -- Creidieki 03:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is completely against the spirit of the project. Discuss first. Ambi 03:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussions have been had and no conclusion has been reached. If you want an actionable discussion on this topic, nominate the article for deletion; do not make it a redirect. I'm putting it back. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 03:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This runs very much against the spirit of this project, which is why you couldn't gain a consensus (or even much support at all) for going ahead with it. Having failed to get such consensus, you don't get to go ahead with it anyway. Redirected again. Ambi 06:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I was never looking for support. I'd seen it mentioned a few times and never saw anything come of it, so I thought I'd make it to see if we could motivate the formation of a consensus. And articles do not need to be approved by anyone before they are made. That would be an encroachment upon the Wiki philosophy; not offering money for quality edits. Please don't make this a redirect again. This page shouldn't be stifled because you disagree with it, as Christopher Parham suggests below. If you want it gone, nominate it for deletion. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 06:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an awful idea. If someone wants to pay for edits fine, just let them arrange it outside of Wikipedia owned space. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not just redirect, if there is a consensus that the page is a bad idea? Christopher Parham (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Because that consensus hasn't been reached or even measured. All discussions heretofore have been non-formal and even then some supported the idea. Neither side had the 75-80% that is generally considered consensus. If it's so horrible, it'll be gone quickly.

Pegasus, as User:Matt Crypto said at the bounty board, "There's absolutely no reason why Wikipedia resources shouldn't be used to improve Wikipedia". cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 06:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd assess the consensus as fairly strong across the two talk pages. If that's a misconception then I'm sure people will flock to revery back to the non-redirect version. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea; Wikipedia is and should remain a volunteer community. Hopefully Jimbo will step down on it, but redirecting seems like an equally valid option. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please stop speedily replacing this page with a redirect. This page does not satisfy any of the CSD, and if you wish to remove a page with substantive content, you should go through policy. Project namespace pages, like other namespaces, do not require a consensus before creation. -- Creidieki 06:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What we're doing is not speedying the page, speedying the page would mean deleting it and would fall under speedy deletion policy which this does not. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's basically the same ... you're still preventing people from accessing the content; the history is gettable by non-adminstrators this way, but it's still out-of-process and not nice. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 07:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason why they can't get to the history by either going to the page then clicking on the redirect notice on the top of the page that it was redirected to, or they can just add ?redirect=no to the url to get to it. In response to the statement that it was out of process I contend that this page's creation was out of process due to the apparent inability to get a consensus on other pages as has been admitted on this talk page and the input so far has been that this is a very bad idea. Thus the continued redirections. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 07:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I said: the history is gettable by non-adminstrators [by redirecting], but it's still out-of-process and not nice. They shouldn't have to do that to get to the content; demonstrate consensus via AfD/MfD/WhateverfD and then you can obscure this page's content. Until then, gtfo. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 07:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's fortunate that's a redlink as it is quite uncivil. In any case, though, I'd say the consensus has been thoroughly demonstrated between here and the Bounty Board talk page; there appear to be precisely three people who think this is at all a good idea, along with ten or so who disagree. There's no need to go to MFD, especially when deletion is not particularly being called for. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As has already been stated, redirecting the page is only marginally better than deleting it and accomplishes the same end well enough. And gtfo isn't particularly incivil in my parlance; it's about the same as "step off" to me. No incivility was intended. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 07:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

That edit summary was supposed to be "I won't revert again but there seems to be pretty strong consensus that this is bad." Christopher Parham (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Money

People work on Wikipedia for all sorts of reasons, and money could be one of those motivations. I do not see why it is against the "spirit" of the project, as Ambi insists. We used to, for example, have a salaried editor-in-chief. In the open source/free software world, with which we share a similar "spirit", most contributors are indeed volunteers, yet a few people are hired to write code, and sometimes bounties are paid to add features or fix bugs and so forth. — Matt Crypto 07:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think this could become a very good thing. I'm sure there are many poor Wikipedians; my rent is overdue right now, in fact. Editing Wikipedia is something we all love doing and I see no reason why someone shouldn't be compensated for it if somebody else who's rent isn't overdue is willing to do that. There are ways that this could be bad and conflict with WP's community, as stated above, but it could also be very good. Maybe we need to establish some guidelines. This could also be a good way to throw new users into the project and it'll almost surely get quality work done much faster than WP:BOUNTY. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 07:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, if people are going to arrange to pay for Wikipedia editing of some kind, then it is much better that it be arranged on-site and thereby known to the community. — Matt Crypto 07:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above and think this is an interesting idea which I'd like to be able to support. However, I share the same concerns voiced below about what this might lead to. --kingboyk 05:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to help Wikipedia for financial reasons then more power to them but let them go to the bounty board and do it to help the foundation. Helping themselves off of editing Wikipedia is just selfish as well as being unwiki since it is pretty much freeloading of Wikimedia resources for their own gain and they're editing for their own profit rather than for the good of the encyclopedia. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the "freeloading" statement. The time an active editor puts into the project is way more than the resources they have used. My bill would come to thousands of dollars. Furthermore, Wikipedia content is already monetised - just look at the many mirror sites (answers.com being perhaps the most notable). --kingboyk 06:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Kingboyk wrote. Moreover, for many Wikipedians, the actual financial investment in their hobby (as opposed to merely time) is larger than any bounty system could reimburse. For example, some of us spend significant amounts of money on acquiring obscure sources, or visiting sites to obtain photographs etc. Finally, gaining reward of any type from Wikipedia is emphatically not immoral ("selfish"). For example, gaining the respect of your peers is a reward, but is not selfish. Feeling good about having written a fine article is not selfish. And so forth. Most people edit Wikipedia for some mix of motivations -- and not out of pure altruism. — Matt Crypto 08:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

OK, I've now nominated this for deletion. Let's take the argument there. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is rather silly; right here is the appropriate place for this discussion. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, if there was to be a general discusion rather thana deletion nomination, then perhaps it should have happened before the market was opened. People opened this immediately and without discussion - so others are justified in quickly trying to shut it down. Unless we can agree to close the MfD, archieve the project for now, and begin a discussion from scratch. --Doc ^ask? 13:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed template

Added proposed template to page. In Mfd, I voted speedy keep because I do not think Wikipedia deletion process is the best method to resolve policy disputes. Concerned that the set time limit in deletion process prematurely ends the discussion before true community consensus is developed. --FloNight ^talk 14:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a policy, guideline, or procedure .

It's a bulletin board, nothing more. It doesn't need to go through the same process as proposed policies, and it is quite different from the other articles in that category. I believe that the proposed policy template should be removed and that the content should be restored, but I'll not do it because of the 3RR. If this is a proposed policy, WP:BOUNTY is as well and ought to be given the same treatment (that is, blanking of all bounties) until it becomes "accepted policy". Somebody else do it please. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 19:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that if this is done, it should be done off-site (i.e. out of project space). -Colin Kimbrell 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 20:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To eliminate the impression that there is anything "official" or "Wikimedia-approved" about it. --Carnildo 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't Wikimedia approve of its editors being paid for their contributions? cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo, why don't you propose a policy to ban paid-for contributions? I'm serious! Once you do that, why don't you try and remove everything Larry Sanger ever contributed? — Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Let us not forget what happened with that though, once he couldn't get paid his salary he left the project, shows how loyal and dedicated he was to the goal of a free encyclopeedia... NOT Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the moment the funding dried up to pay his salary he left without a look back and if this goes through we'll end up with contributors who don't care about the project. They'll just take their money and leave since they'll have no dedication to the project itself. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, but those people most likely wouldn't contribute to Wikipedia without being paid in the first place. That means they aren't contributing now. So given the alternative between encouraging them to contribute and not encouraging them to contribute, you'd...not encourage them to contribute? I think it's sickening that people like you favor ideological purity over product. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 07:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And I think it's sickening that your willing to sellout the project at the snap of a finger and quality to boot btw, what do you think will happen to the overall quality of articles when people get paid to make something that looks pretty but in reality could be crap and by the time someone figures it out and cleans it up the person's already gone up and split with the money. Plus, I have no urge to edit alongside people are doing it for the money rather than for the good of the project, they are perfectly welcome to have "Paid for edis-opedia" for which I'd suggest the tagline "The free encyclopedia that you can get paid for editing". Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 07:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your first point about the quality of articles, has this happened on the German Wikipedia? I was under the impression that they were afflicted with rather high quality articles. You've offered neither explanation nor evidence as to why financial motivation (as opposed to any of the myriad other types of motivation on Wikipedia) will suddenly cause a sharp decline in quality. Concerning your second point, while you are entitled to your wishes about the motives of other editors, I'm afraid they must take second place behind our goal of writing a free encyclopedia. Personally, I'd like everyone I work alongside on the project to be a nice person, but -- believe it or not -- many aren't. However, we put up with them because they help us more than they hinder us. — Matt Crypto 08:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that we aren't going to get a high quality encyclopedia this way, we're gonna get crap made by people who are motiviated by their own greed rather than creating a good resource for everyone including other people and I don't have the stats on the German Wikipedia nor do I speak German (thus cannot get them myself) on the quality of the articles and trends in them before and after the creation of a way to pay contributors. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 08:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your point. Money can motivate people to produce excellent work. — Matt Crypto 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that it should be done off-site because I don't like the idea of creating multiple tiers of contributors here. It'll encourage the creation of a new set of systemic biases into the article distribution, unless you think a bunch of people are going to sponsor 12th-century African leaders and such. It also creates a very problematic conflict of interest. If you had money riding on the Featured Article status of a particular submission, could you really be trusted to make an impartial determination in FA discussions about that article (or its "competition")? Wouldn't it create additional incentive for bad actors to run sock factories to try and game the system? If people want to set up some kind of person-to-person relationship on content outside of the site, there's nothing we can really do to influence that, but we can certainly oppose it here. -Colin Kimbrell 16:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, WP:FAC is set up in such a way that it's immune to sockpuppeting. --Carnildo 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I think everyone who took those pretty NASA pictures were paid to take them! We have to take down all public domain US Government images since they were produced by *paid employees* of the US government! — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Using images on the encyclopedia to enhance articles and paying editors to edit Wikipedia are entirely different. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In both cases we're still using content that was produced for pay. It's a rather arbitrary distinction to make beyond that point. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 07:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you'll notice that people have and still are vocally resistant to the answers.com deal and I think it's a poor comparison to compare the placement of a single link on a project page and paying people for their actual contributions to articles. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 07:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between the two is crucial. Adding public domain material to the site is an act of altruism, even if that material had originally been created for pay. Personally creating content for pay is basically structural POV-pushing with a veneer of legitimacy. -Colin Kimbrell 16:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't even begin to compare to the answers.com deal, since that wasn't with an independent editor who's checked by a few thousand others at least and can be slapped with a banhammer if there's anything fishy going on, but with an entity that has absolute control over anything that happens here whatsoever. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ground rules

Assuming that this stays around, here are some ground rules that I think ought to apply:

1. Bounties that are deemed contrary to Wikipedia policy may be removed by any editor, subject to the usual rules for content disputes and reversion.
2. Payment is at the sole discretion of the payer. Whether the task has been completed and who completed it are facts to be determined by the payer. The poster of a bounty does not incur any actual obligation to pay anything whatsoever.

Possibly others. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Support: these those sound sensible. People taking on bounties should only do so under the understanding of your point #2, and therefore might wish to take into consideration the reputation of the payer. — Matt Crypto 08:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested guidelines to avoid content manipulation

It seems that a lot of concerns about this page come down to the potential manipulation of content due to money. This is definitely a sensitive issue, and I'd like to suggest some potential guidelines that might be a first start. I think that we all want to avoid content manipulation.

So, my basic suggestion is that we should allow tasks related to articles, but not tasks related to the content in articles. We shouldn't allow people to pay for material to be added about a specific aspect of a topic. So, examples of acceptable bounties might be:

1. Add two paragraphs to the ExxonMobil article.
2. Add one citation to the ExxonMobil article.
3. Fix three wikilinks or grammatical errors in the ExxonMobil article.
4. Bring ExxonMobil to Featured Article status.

But I think that unacceptable bounties would be:

1. Add material to a specific section of ExxonMobil (say, "Allegations against ExxonMobil" would be particularly problematic)
2. Add coverage of a specific aspect of a topic, or a specific fact.

That way, we can pay for topics to be expanded, but won't have any content control over articles. I also think that bounty offerers and bounty fulfillers should be prohibited from participating in AFD and FA discussions about an article, because they have an interest in the article. We might ask that editors mention this page in their edit summaries whenever they are fulfilling a bounty.

All of these suggestions are things that I think should be true of both Wikipedia:Now Hiring and Wikipedia:Bounty Board bounties. Are these restrictions strong enough? Would these make people feel more comfortable with the system? -- Creidieki 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't necessary. All that's necessary is to ensure that edited articles, post-bounty, conform to NPOV, and to fix them if they don't. If people waste their money for no useful purpose that alone is enough to stop them from spending again. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. There is absolutely nothing to say that NPOV will not apply to any edit, no matter how specific. If someone wants to pay someone else to write about the length of GWBs toenails, there is no assumption that the writing will be biased in favour or against the current state of them. I could agree that certain requests should not be made, but not those specified by you above. An example of a bounty that should not be allowed: "$20 to write an article portraying the charitable works of Wal-Mart in a favourable light", since the request itself is asked to break Wikipedia policy. --Kickstart70-T-C 22:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that my guidelines are conservative, but I think that they might be a good start. We could look at changing them later once the process is established, if there's a consensus that they're too weak or too strong. This seems to be a very contentious topic, and I wouldn't object to starting slowly, as a show of good faith. -- Creidieki 23:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that bounties that aim to violate NPOV should be removed. However, I don't think it is really necessary to have instruction creep surrounding this. After all, this is a wiki, and the community will make sure the bounties are not against the spirit of the project. Kusma (討論) 04:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

and thus it begins. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a better guideline would be to advise that bounties should steer clear of any dispute? I don't think it's necessary to prohibit people from working on specific sections. For a start, most specific sections are completely innocuous (e.g., a bounty to work on the "Cryptographic primitives" section of Cryptography). What we'd want to watch out for is situations along the lines of someone saying, "£50 for satisfactory improvement of section X in article Y" where there's currently an NPOV dispute about section X in article Y. In such a case, there could be a pressure for the bounty receiver to join the dispute on the side of the payer. — Matt Crypto 08:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In the (unfortunate) event that this is accepted, people who have contributed to an article in exchange for a bounty should also be prohibited from adding or removing prod tags to any articles, editing AFD/MFD/TFD, and making determinations on FA status on any articles, with violations of this being a blockable offense. Anybody with financial gain at stake on an article's status is inherently compromised as an arbiter of these sorts of issues. -Colin Kimbrell 16:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Not necessarily. Certainly we want to make sure that nobody is being paid for voting on these things. But there are stronger pressures we deal with routinely anyway: we don't, for example, ban religious people from involvement in deletion debates on articles about their religion, etc etc. — Matt Crypto 16:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a misleading analogy, as there is no inherent conflict of interest for a religious person to edit articles about religion; they're required to act impartially just like any other editors, and if they try to push POV (like User:Jason Gastrich), there are repercussions. Direct financial interest, on the other hand, inherently places an editor's actions in question. It's not acceptable for journalists to cover subjects in which they have a direct financial interest (as with Armstrong Williams, etc.), and by our own policies it's not acceptable for an editor to edit articles with which they have a direct connection (and being paid by the subject of the article would almost certainly qualify). Furthermore, these transactions will be entirely without oversight, since Wikipedia itself isn't going to be involved in the arrangement in any way. A particular arrangement might look legitimate on the surface, but how can we know what's going on under the table? I'm not naive; I assume that there are already contributors being paid for what they contribute, but I don't see any need to make things easy for them. -Colin Kimbrell 17:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a misleading analogy at all, it's exactly the same thing. The exact same conflict of interest is involved for someone that is passionate about a religion and someone paid to improve an article. They're both "required to act impartially just like any other editors", there's no difference. Sorry you're so against something that has the potential to benefit the project, but it would be better if you just watch over the contributions related to this to monitor them for our major policies including NPOV. That way we all win. The policies are followed and better content is produced. - Taxman ^Talk 14:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd think the conflict of interest would be greater if someone had not yet been paid than if they had already been paid. If they had already been paid, their conflict would be about the same as any other editor that had already contributed - possibly even less, because they may have no intrinsic interest in the topic. On the other hand, someone not yet paid has definite interest in seeing that they get paid, so is more conflicted. So the restriction should be against putting up bounties/payments for items already in dispute/nomination status. For nominations for improving to FA/GA status, the bounty payer should be able to nominate, but not the bounty receiver. GRBerry 17:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel really strongly about this, to the extent that I'd probably leave the project if it passes. Without its credibility, Wikipedia's nothing but a large and well-organized message board. -Colin Kimbrell 17:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

<removed by me>. It's unreasonable to suggest that Wikipedia's credibility would be at stake simply because people started giving each other small amounts of money for the occasional editing task. (On the contrary, Wikipedia's credibility is normally questioned precisely because we don't pay editors to write our articles!) On the German Wikipedia, their experience is reported to be that the board is not even that active, and certainly isn't the great coming of doom and destruction that some are proclaiming it would be. — Matt Crypto 17:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough about the "small amounts of money for the occasional editing task". How would you deal with the hypothetical

Turn Windows Vista into a featured article. Bounty: $1,000,000 (offered by User:BGates).

posted on the page, though? Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't have a more of a problem problem with that than somebody getting Vista just because he's a fan of it (as long as the FAC remains fair and square, of course. I'd take a dim view of anyone supporting an article for FAC that he's been paid to write, but even that I wouldn't strictly forbid). -- grm_wnr Esc 18:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly useful to ponder improbable edge-cases, but there's little wrong with it in theory. The article would still have to be NPOV to get through FA, and with a bounty that large, you can be damn sure it'd get enough attention. As Grm_wnr points out, we're much more at risk from a sneaky POV-pushing FA candidate from a fan: fans don't announce their intentions on bounty board pages. — Matt Crypto 18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's more the outward impression than any real danger. Even if the article were fully NPOV, there'd be a nagging suspicion—given the amount of money involved—that it had been manipulated. On another note, I tend to think that "Wikipedia article on X is biased!" wouldn't have nearly the same effect as a headline as "Bill Gates pays $1M for Wikipedia article to be changed!", but that's just me ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd also think that in this situation, the article would never pass on FAC just based on the fact that it's contract work - in fact, that is probably the greater danger, somebody paying for an article with the intention to not to get it featured due to the ensuing extreme scrutiny. (I'm just musing here, don't take this too seriously - but it's not a joke either) -- grm_wnr Esc 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a moot point anyway. Brent Gates had a decent MLB career, but I don't think he's rich enough to throw around that kind of money on a whim. -Colin Kimbrell 20:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got a perfectly fine perspective, thanks, and I'm dead serious about this. I would be sad to have to go, but it would be pointless to contribute to something in which I'd have no confidence. As for German Wikipedia, isn't this just a variant of the much-derided "cruft justifies more cruft" argument? Furthermore, if nobody's using it over there, why do we need to create a disruption by adding it here? -Colin Kimbrell 17:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

<removed by me> — Matt Crypto 18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course you think my reaction is out of proportion; you're the one who thinks this is a good idea. It's not blackmail, just a statement of fact: If this passes, I don't want to even endorse it by implication through involvement with the project. This is relevant in part because this proposal has been cited as a means of attracting additional contributors, and nobody has noted until now that it would likely come at a cost of some established contributors. -Colin Kimbrell 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think that Creidieki's suggestion will ultimately prove impossible to enforce. Once the ExxonMobil article expands to a certain length, Criticism of ExxonMobil will be spun off as a standalone article (as with Criticism of Microsoft, etc.). Once that happens, what do you do? Do you put a blanket ban on bounties for any "Criticism" articles? Doing so would create separate classes of articles that are eligible for bounties and articles that are not, a dangerous precedent. -Colin Kimbrell 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, doing so would also damage the idea that this proposal isn't just a dressed-up version of paid advocacy, since there would then be no legitimate way to provide negative-but-verifiable content on the subject of the bounty once the article reached a certain size. Like I said, a seemingly fatal flaw. -Colin Kimbrell 19:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these are unnecessary; we just have to examine the edits carefully. And I don't understand how anyone is arguing that the much more intense examination an article with a bounty similar to the BGates example above is a bad thing. That's good. That's another argument for this; articles that need help get it and get it from a lot of editors; not just those that are being paid the bounty. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 02:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Money pov

Of course the red-baiting right is all for this proposal, people who have the money to buy articles will tend to promote their view as npov. This is a farce and they know it. They're just going through the motions: commercializing the project 1 inch at a time. El_C 11:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The "this will piss off the socialists/commies" comments on the MfD are very lame, but there's not a risk of a slippery slope here, intentional or otherwise. The only bounties that would stand for even a minute here are those that are evidently harmless. For example, I'd quite like to have some diagrams made for certain cryptography pages. If I can't convince anyone to get round to it on Requests for Images, I wouldn't mind paying someone for their trouble. This is the sort of thing that this page is for, and anything with a whiff of monetary coercion for a POV will get stamped on quickly, even by the supports of this page. — Matt Crypto 14:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confident that these sort of slippery slope instances could be easily identified by many here, since I'm thinking about more systemic and subtle trends as opposed to the more obvious cases. I have no issue with you offering someone $20 to do this or that if the notice is placed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography, WP:VP, or WP:RA, but I have great concern in institutionalizing the practice of hire-for-pay on Wikipedia. The AfD might have been ill-advised (I, at least, refrained from voting), but I do not see this policy meeting consensus, although, I do see it ratified & expedited by the higher ups via a majority vote as a real, and disturbing possibility. El_C 19:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a policy, it's a noticeboard. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 05:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhuh. El_C 07:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the "this will piss off the commies" demonstrates that this proposal is divisive and inflammatory. Unfortunately, it isn't a template; but I oppose it anyway. Septentrionalis 19:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when aren't we allowed to make playful jabs at the other side in deletion arguments? — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Of ocurse you are permitted to demonstrate that your proposals are divisive. This is not a deletion argument; and the assumptions that Wikipedia has two sides, and that proposals are ideological, are throughly undesirable. Septentrionalis 20:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the opposition to this proposal is ideological. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thinking that opposition is limited to offending abstract ideals unrelated to future problems, is ideological just the same. El_C 18:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What problem is this supposed to fix???

BAD PROPOSAL! NO BISCUIT!

What problem is this supposed to fix, exactly? Herostratus 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian poverty, of course! But this isn't particularly a problem-fixing proposal, exactly, unless you can view it somehow as part of the general problem of how we motivate and reward editors. No, this would simply be useful, to a small extent. — Matt Crypto 23:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the dog (see photo on right) on this one that this was a bad choice from the get go and should be abandoned. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 07:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Reasoning is better than assertion. — Matt Crypto 17:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, not sure if anything else is thinking this, but it could be used to chip away at the chronic maintenence backlogs. We have tens of thousands of orphaned, deadend, uncategorized and articles needing cleanup, wikification, verification, context, etc. Probably 10-20% of our million articles need basic maintenence performed. So it would be interesting if you could get payed $10 to say, properly categorize 100 articles, or $5 to go address 10 articles that need updating or context added. Honestly I don't see those backlogs ever getting dealt with considering the current level of interest in maintenence. --W.marsh 15:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh and what about having a full time staff, earning several 1000s USD a months, paying their taxes, with their labour rights guarantees and doing a professional work with the proper (verified) credentials...? Too late, it's called Britannica :-Z User:Ejrrjs says What? 17:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the idea of a well-maintained encyclopedia was so controversial! --W.marsh 01:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the controversy is about that nickel-and-dime, piecemeal payments proposed seem like an effort to spread a Ferengi-like culture within Wikipedia, at odds with the altruistic or barn-raising ideals that the project is supposedly based on. Someone getting $5 to update 10 articles is getting a fraction of minimum wage, so the money is meaningless--you get the bad effects of monetizing what used to be volunteer work, without doing anything about editor poverty. The kinds of tasks you're suggesting paying for, if they need to be paid for, could more beneficially be handled by a staff editor tasked with such things and getting a livable salary, just like Brion is getting a salary for maintaining the servers. Alternatively we could have some sprints at events like Wikimania where editors would get together in person and knock off those tasks collaboratively. Phr 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I am talking about backlogs of thousands of articles... with hundreds added every week. Even if a quickie effort cleared the log it would be back in a month. The bottom line is that the volunteer system doesn't seem to be effectively dealing with these problems, for a variety of reasons. It's also important to realize that this would just be supplimental income for the participants, and systems like this have been shown to work, e.g. Google Answers. A staff editor is another way to do it, but this is less formal and possibly more cost effective, I think. People will hapilly do some quality, finite work for a small bounty, if they can do it freelance and on their own terms. This is all hypothetical of course, I really doubt people'd be putting up a lot of bounties like this, but it would nice if some random millionare decided to finance it! --W.marsh 17:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Phr, I think that of all commentators you have offered the most interesting critique of the project. You're perfectly right that we're talking about paying people a pittance - I've compared it to poker-for-pennies or Amazon Mechanical Turk. I'd like to know more, in terms as concrete as possible, about what you consider to be the harmful effect of monetizing. Haukur 20:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea

Who is going to pay apart from people with a biased agenda to promote? How many people would be driven away by the mere existence of it? Most likely many. You couldn't trust any Wikipedia article if you knew it might have been paid for by a politician, corporation or publicist. Wikipedia woudl degenerate into a compendium of press releases before it died altogether because no one wanted to visit any more so there was no longer an audience for people to pay to get in front of. Sumahoy 03:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There's many legitimate reasons to pay people. Chiefly, if you don't have a specific ability: for example, to create diagrams, or to speak a foreign language (for translation requests), or photography, or to be able to write good English, and so forth. Moreover, and this bears repeating, we simply wouldn't allow any bounties that promoted a biased agenda. Regarding the issue of trust, we have Wikipedia articles on, I dunno, say, mormonism and abortionism, even though they have been edited by mormons and pro-life/pro-choice people, right? Why would people trust Wikipedia articles any less if they knew someone had edited it who was merely being paid for it? — Matt Crypto 09:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So you would let that happen? Interesting. Actually, the existence of this board means you know EXACTLY who paid for what. It increases transparency, it doesn't reduce it. On the other hand, when paid PR teams edit Wikipedia on company time, no one is the wiser unless some serious CheckUser is done. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Linux

I find the hyberbolic levels the opposition to this poliy has risen to rather humorous. Not intending to be offensive to those that oppose, but come on people. The same things were said about Linux and other open source software. There are many, if not hundreds of people paid to work on the Linux kernel. Has the claimed doom and gloom occured? Is the Linux kernel worse off or rather better? More than that, the people claiming doom and gloom should back it up with evidence from how this worked on the German Wikipedia. Find someone that is active in it there and have them summarize how it's going. But other than that, improved articles are improved articles whether the work was paid for or not, so there's nothing wrong with this going ahead just like any other Wikiproject. The people that want to do it, do it, and those that don't can work on something else, or monitor for any percieved ills and correct them. - Taxman ^Talk 14:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to insult the intelligence of those who support (hyper-amusingly & otherwise), but Linux does not involve pov content, it is code. El_C 17:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget though that if there are more 1's than 0's in the binary version of the kernal code then it's POV against the 0's. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No. - FrancisTyers 18:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So all other printed reference works are worthless because they were paid for too and can involve a POV? - Taxman ^Talk 18:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No. - El_C 19:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You should grep through the source for comments some time. Definitely POV, definitely not safe for polite company. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That [heated] debate did not involve encyclopedia entries, it involved linux. El_C 19:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, and this issue doesn't have anything to do with Linux either, so why did you add to the metaphorical discussion which included it? --Kickstart70-T-C 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I presume the reason people bring up Linux is because of the ideological objections about the "spirit" of the project. Since Wikipedia's license and development model, and (arguably) spirit, has much in common with free software, it's not unreasonable to consider how bounties work in free software. — Matt Crypto 16:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed format

What do you all think of this format, and do you think we should insist bounties by posted according to some protocol as RfAs, etc. are?

FYI, this isn't real. It's only an example. Don't expect me to pay it, because I can't.

Wikipedia:Now Hiring

description Now Hiring needs a lot of help. There are a lot of people spewing hyperbole that it'll destroy Wikipedia. These people are wrong. $20 US to whoever doesn't suck. sig cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 02:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

compensation

• Compensation: $20 US

subjects

• Wikipedia, Economics

proposer

• cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 02:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

parties that can claim

• Split between all editors that I determine make a significant contribution. Payment is not guaranteed to any party.

FYI, this isn't real. It's only an example. Don't expect me to pay it, because I can't.

You know. Like that. I've bolded the possible fields. Opinions? cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 02:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs expiration date. Since this is a contract really, it needs more detail who can claim, how determined, when it could be rescinded, etc etc. But general idea is good. Renata 17:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What's been proposed above, and what is in practice on the German Wikipedia, is that the person offering the bounty chooses whether or not the bounty is paid. I think we'd do well to use that principle. — Matt Crypto 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Going live

Since it was kept per MfD, what are the reasons not to go live? Renata 17:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

the reasoning behind why it was kept on MFD was mainly due to the fact that nobody could agree on it's status and many people voted ot keep assuming it was a proposal (a fact that's disputed). It still needs support though which it being kept on MFD is not an endorsement of and it does not have, if you'll see from this talk page there is strong opposition to this. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also strong support for this. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, no. The MfD was, if nothing else, endorsement of keeping this as an example of a bad idea. It should not "go live" until consensus is established here, which from the looks of it won't be happening any time soon. --W.marsh 18:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe 100% consensus is a requirement, though. Some people will stick to their preference in the face of overwhelming evidence opposing it, in any issue. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Until there is policy forbidding it, I believe we should carry on with it. Given that Wikipedia has had paid editors in the past (Sanger), I'm afraid it's up to those opposing to establish a consensus against the proposal. — Matt Crypto 06:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 06:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't compare this proposal with the Sanger situation and therefore claim that this is nothing new. There's a huge difference between someone paid by the Wikipedia foundation and someone paid by other Wikipedians. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The principle, however, of people being paid to edit has precedent. Until there's policy forbidding it, I see no reason why this page shouldn't go live. If you think about it, we have much more right to have a say in how the Wikimedia Foundation spends its money than we have to try and dictate how individual Wikipedians should spend their money, and here the latter is suggested, not the former. — Matt Crypto 10:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, believe that allowing this is a fundamental change in policy, and would argue strongly that there needs to be consensus in favour before it goes live. Since it looks from the strawpoll that we're not going to get 75% either way (at the time of writing it's 10 support, 14 oppose) we have an impasse, and I don't know how to resolve it. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How about we trial it for a couple of weeks (or whatever), and then reevaluate whether there are any pragmatic problems? Of course, that won't really appeal to the people who are opposed on ideological grounds, but I have to confess I'm really struggling to understand where they're coming from on this. — Matt Crypto 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Strawpoll

Do you Support, Oppose, or Abstain this proposal? Please don't answer with some other choice so we can get this to a resolution, but feel free to add comments to your strawpoll vote. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll count: [30/21/1]

Support

1. Support: No one has yet come up with a logical reason why this would cause POV edits, which appears to be the main contention. The usual requirements for a Wikipedia entry apply, and offers of money for things that violate Wikipedia policy are opposed by everyone involved in this debate so far, and would be quashed as they came up. In addition, this has worked with the German Wikipedia without any of the negatives that opponents have claimed will happen. Therefore I put my support behind this. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - I want to "hire" not because I am pushing some agenda, but because I have no time or skills needed. I have a few extra bucks though... to share with fellow Wikipedians. Renata 18:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
   • Example: I have about 100 maps I would like to make, but I have no skills or knowledge of any graphic program. Also, I have no time to learn it. It would be ridicilous to ask anybody to make those maps. But with this proposal I could offer a couple bucks for every map. Then I have a standing chance... And that's not because I am pushing some agenda, but because I love Wikipedia, Renata 23:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak support within reason. If done properly this could be a good tool to deal with issues people won't naturally deal with... like the massive maintenence backlogs mentioned above. And honestly, it isn't like companies are going to come here and say "Add a POV to this article!" They have writers on salary, if they want a POV added they can (and increasingly do) just do it, and not announce it in public. I think what we'd see more here is "Improve this article!" kind of stuff from Wikipedia fans who feel like spending some money. Might be better for an off-wiki site though. --W.marsh 18:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 20:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Tentative support for a trial run. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, at least for a trial run. It's worked at de, and a similar thing has worked on WP:BOUNTY without POV issues, so it could work here. --Rory096_(block) 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. The German Wikipedia demonstrates that pragmatic concerns are unfounded. — Matt Crypto 06:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. If it turns out to be a disaster, it can be closed later. Fredrik Johansson 07:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support if it starts to be come problematic, we can always ban it later Tuf-Kat 10:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support – if it's working on the German Wikipedia, it can work here. It's got to be worth a trial run at the very least – Gurch 12:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - This notice board (not policy) in no way undermines the "purity" of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about creating a free-content encyclopedia, period. The community and its customs and ideologies are secondary. Traditional encyclopedias pay their editors; by encouraging the participation of writers motivated by money, it should help counteract the systematic bias resulting from the fact that interest currently motivates most editors (hence "cruft").--ragesoss 22:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. There haven't really been any well reasoned arguments against going forward with this. All have been emotional arguments about the spirit of the project or other arguments that don't fit with the reality of this causing no major problems on the German project. In the end our policies rule the day and conten and reliable references is what matters. I agree with ragesoss above, and note that if some people want to go ahead with this they can, it's just like any other project on Wikipedia. Those that don't want to participate can work on other things. - Taxman ^Talk 22:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong support - anything that helps motivate people to build a better encyclopedia is something we should be promoting. Money is a very well-tested motivator. The people editing for money are likely to be some of our best editors. If they do bad work and the article doesn't get written/featured/whatever, then they don't get paid. If they break policy and get blocked/banned, then they also don't get paid. We should implement this as soon as possible. Johntex\^talk 22:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
15. The poll looks premature to me as I don't really see a coherent proposal. But overall the ideas that have been bandied about seem to me like they're worth trying out. Barring a board-ruling to the contrary I don't see any reason why individual contributors can't make individual pledges in ad hoc forums (though I'd prefer to annoy as few of my fellow editors as possible). Let's be careful to make clear that there is no official Foundation apparatus behind this. Haukur 22:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Support -- I want to feel like I can help on specific articles, even when I don't have the necessary expertise. I hope that I can help with some of the systemic bias by encouraging work on hair care, stapler, and other life-details issues. I think that we need to be careful about how we implement this, and I'd be happy to reconsider after some period of time, but I think that individual editors can do this anyway, so I'd prefer to keep it where we can see it. -- Creidieki 01:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support It doesn't go against the spirit of Wikipedia (freely available content is all that matters). It's transparent. The project page has been rewritten to address some of the concerns. I think it's worthy of an attempted run. --kingboyk 05:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - Sounds good to me! If people want to pay their money to others to help improve Wikipedia, let them! I, for one, would definitely be interested in tackling some for-pay assignments. --Cyde Weys 06:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Cautious support - I support the idea in its spirit - I can see it being useful in developing representation of under-represented areas such as Africa or in dealing with backlogs. However, several loose ends need to be tied up. --Gurubrahma 10:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. No reason not to. We certainly have enough unpaid POV-pushers, and our processes can deal with paid-for POV just like they can deal with unpaid-for POV. Plus, this might lead to more good articles, as people won't pay for crap that is nominated for deletion within minutes. The opponents might also consider that this might empower poor (in the monetary sense) editors, by giving them a chance to earn some money and thus an opportunity to contribute they might not otherwise have. Sandstein 16:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Support In addition to reasons above, it allows people who want to have an article on a certain subject (or a non-stub article on a subject) but don't have the resources at hand to write it themselves to offer a payment to those who could, but might not have made it a priority. I'd rather see school kids paying wikipedia editors to write encyclopedic content than paying various paper writing sites to write a paper for them for a few reasons 1) we get the money, 2) using an encyclopedia to get data for a school paper isn't cheating so the kid develops better morals and 3) the cheater facilitators aren't getting paid. Not that I think all or most bounty offerers will be school kids, of course. On the other hand, my kids will be home-schooled, and if they develop enough interest in some esoteric topic (perhaps some obscure species), I might pay for an article on that topic to be promoted to non-stub status just to give them a starting point for a homeschool assignment. I also haven't seen a bias argument that concerns me. GRBerry 17:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
23. Support the project and Oppose this straw poll. I have no particular interest in the project and will almost certainly not be a part of it, but I can't see why it shouldn't exist. More importantly, I don't see why the results of a strawpoll should make a whiff of difference as to whether the project is allowed to continue. We may as well try to vote out the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
24. Support It is worth a try. I think it needs to go on a trial period first. M.T. | Mr. Turcotte 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Kaldari 23:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. No valid reason to oppose. People can be paid outside of Wikipedia to be POV warriors. If this encourages professional writing and research, it can only serve to improve Wikipedia. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. No harm in trying. -- JamesTeterenko 23:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
28. Support but don't believe voting is valid (voting is evil, a bad way to form consensus, and besides that, this isn't even a policy, it's a message board that could as well be hosted elsewhere; if it is rejected here, it will be moved offsite, and it will be equally as good at "destroying Wikipedia" from there too). Keeping it here encourages openness. Plenty of benificent editors are likely to put up bounties for neglected topics. Few businessmen would be stupid enough to try to use this for PR. Maybe setting FA as the goal would ease the problem of POV ("when I am happy with the article, I'll pay..." may be a bit dodgy) and it may be sensible to exclude various POV-spinoffs ("criticisms of Foo" articles tend to be POV-wars in disguise, although there's no reason in theory they can't be NPOVed, and they'd have to be to pass FAC). Some form of "sensible" limit on rewards may be helpful, but frankly I can't imagine that even a $1,000 reward is likely in any case. I urge all contributors engaged in this vote to start thinking carefully about what forms of reward and what limitations we want to impose because in some form this is gonna happen, here or elsewhere (here's better because it's open and we can control it). Just looking at this talk page, monetary offers have been made for general improvement and also FA-ing of underrepresented pages. I am not saying whether this is a good thing or a bad thing; the question is how we want to control it. Do we need to scrub out this talk page now? Remove those comments? Ban the editors who suggested it, or at least ban them from Sudan-related articles?? Should only the FA offer stand? What about "criticisms of Sudanese literature" - would we want a bounty on that? Would a $100,000 bounty for "Allegations of Sudanese war crimes in Darfur" be acceptable? These seem to be the real issues here, and it would be better to try to build consensus on them than to fight a proposal that isn't just not dead, but essentially unkillable. TheGrappler 00:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
29. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 05:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. This is something, like PROD, that really should be tried. Until then we really don't know whether it'll work or not. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose This is overall a bad idea since editors should be in it for the love of the project not for money and for the fact that this will just lead to people getting paid for POV edit wars which is an extremely bad thing. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

   Couldn't just Oppose to make it easy for counting, then state the rest in comments, eh? --Kickstart70-T-C 18:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose This is basically a proposal to kill Wikipedia and replace it with a PR tool. Hawkestone 18:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

   Could you back up this assertion with logic? --Kickstart70-T-C 18:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose' for now. I'd like to hear more from the German wiki editors about how it has been working out there before we try something like this here. JoshuaZ 18:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose' Doesn't solve no problem, and opens the door to many (POV related or not). This statement is straightforward; I've checked with my pet and it agreed, so don't bother to ask me for the "logic" behind it. User:Ejrrjs says What? 19:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

   The logic behind the opposition to this is important. For my part, I'm completely willing to change my mind on supporting this, if only someone would give me a rational and logical reason why this should not be allowed. So far all of the opposition has been either "it's bad" or "it has potential to be bad", ignoring WP:AGF and not providing any scenario not covered by existing Wikipedia policy or guidelines. If someone will do this better, I will reconsider my support. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

   So you do support any proposal unless proven wrong? Weird, I thought that the burden of the proof should lie on the innovators. User:Ejrrjs says What? 20:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

   Wikipedia can afford to be bold and experimental. That is, in fact, its very nature :) Haukur 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

   Well, I guess some wealthy individuals/corporations can afford to be bolder :-P User:Ejrrjs says What? 22:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, I think the burden of proof should lie with those promoting this new change of policy -- i.e., that paid editors are no longer allowed. Up till now, we've made use of paid editors (e.g. Larry Sanger) ;-) Sure, I'm being a little facetious, but there is precedent for paying editors both on this project and other projects of a similar nature, and it would seem they have met with little disaster. — Matt Crypto 10:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose - FrancisTyers 19:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Total oppose whilst we can't stop paid people (company reps) from using Wikipedia as a promotional opportunity, it is difficult to take the moral high ground if we encourage mercenary editing. --Doc ^ask? 21:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

   And who are you to impose your own bizarre, anti-money personal sense of morality on the rest of the project? — Phil Welch (t) (c) 23:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

   He's Doc, of course. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 10:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

   That Commrade Doc to you Phil. --Doc ^ask? 11:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

7. Strong oppose, per the reasons given at the MfD. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 22:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I don't think the comparison with Larry Sanger holds water, and I don't like the tacit conflation of Wikipedia with the so-called "Open Source" software movement, which is in tension with the differently-motivated Free software movement. I see Wikipedia's ideals as descending from the Free Software movement rather than from Open Source, so I'm unmoved by Open Source rationales. Also, Larry Sanger's situation was much different from someone doing nickel and dime gigs through a page like this: he was employed full time by the WMF, similar to how the FSF has hired full-time programmers for the GNU project. The FSF was never willing to hire out specific part-time tasks, and FSF programmers got paid a lot less than they'd have gotten in industry, so it was in some ways a volunteer position even though you were getting a salary to cover your living expenses. (Note that it was a fantastic experience regardless of the lousy pay).

   I'd be supportive of WMF hiring some full-time editors if funds permitted, but this current proposal seems more like an attempt to turn Wikipedia into Ebay. I didn't even like the bounty board, which had at least one attempt to undermine Wikipedia's licensing policies. Should we also put up some Wikipedia pages for selling our used computers and CD's? (Hmm, WP:BEANS). By the way, re the Microsoft example: scroll your way through Stardock and scratch your head for a few moments. Phr 22:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

   Um...Stardock wasn't written due to anything posted on this board. I don't see why you feel compelled to provide evidence to prove my point but thanks anyway. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 23:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose. Ambi 00:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose--cj | talk 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose - No way.--God Ω War 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose as I do think it runs a bit contrary to the image Wikipedia has developed and certainly wants to continue to promote; on the other hand the consequences are hardly likely to be especially bad. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. While it is not possible and (therefore) not desirable to prevent someone paying someone else to edit Wikipedia, I do not believe creating a board to facilitate this on Wikipedia sends out the right signal at all. Mgekelly - Talk 09:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose as per Christopher Parham. I don't believe the argument that it will create lots of corporate-paid Wikipedians (no more than we currently have, anyway) but I do think that it is counter to the spirit of this whole thing. Also (and yes, I know this isn't the strongest argument) can you even begin to imagine the fun Andrew Orlowski will have with something like this? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Doc, etc. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 11:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, against Wikipedia's principle and image. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose, both per last few comments and #Three simple questions below. BigBlueFish 18:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

    Could you remove this, rather than strikethrough, so the counts make sense? I don't want to do this for you so as not to give the appearance of further bias. Thanks --Kickstart70-T-C 22:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

    No need to remove. Little wiki markup tweak and problem solved. Renata 02:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed. Incidentally, this is a straw poll. Vote counts mean nothing, it's the comments that count and the general consensus. BigBlueFish 08:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

17. Oppose If people really want to keep the Wikipedia free they would use the Bounty Board instead. Tarret 22:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose Don't fix what ain't broke. Despite the loud protests that this isn't a policy proposal, the mere existence of such a thing is setting a policy precedent by default. --Dragon695 01:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose, mainly per potential to negatively impact FA promotion process. ~ PseudoSudo 03:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose However you tweak this the basic message it will give off is that Wikipedia can be bought. It is sure to put off some people who don't see why they should edit for free when others are getting paid, and even if only there are only a few such people that will outweigh any possible benefit. Scranchuse 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose. In addition to being a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, this would introduce huge structural weaknesses into the project itself. Terrible, terrible idea. -Colin Kimbrell 03:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain - this proposal isn't ready for implementation. There needs to be some established sort of structure to how someone offers a reward and how someone goes about claiming it. BigBlueFish 21:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sample offer

It seems to me that offers like the following would be harmless:

I offer 10 GBP to any editor who brings the Orkneys article up to featured article standard. I reserve the right to cancel or withdraw this offer at any time for any reason including but not limited to the use of undesirable methods on the part of editors involved in the required work or disapproval of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. Judgment of how, when and to whom the payment should be made, if at all, resides solely with myself. If more than one editor does a substantial amount of work I may decide to split the sum between them. The Wikimedia Foundation does not bear any responsibility for any part of this offer and does not endorse it in any way. Nor does any other person or organization.

I appreciate that people can legitimately be concerned about offers of larger sums to work on articles where a corporation could possibly gain significant promotion by having an article on itself or one of its products as a featured article. Perhaps this is something that should be discussed more on the FAC level. In the past people have objected to articles on things like Pokémon characters or computer games on the grounds that be featuring them on the main page Wikipedia is promoting the products. Even if such an article is completely neutral and includes criticism of its subject the very presence of it as a featured article would probably constitute net gain for the company in question. I'm not overly concerned about large corporations like Microsoft, where any Wikipedia attention is an insignificant fragment of the firm's total PR campaign. But small, yet notable, corporations could hypothetically get a significant publicity boost from appearing on Wikipedia's main page and its list of featured articles.

I think this is something to ponder irrespective of the present discussion on bounties. I don't think it's a serious problem, though, and I don't think it will spell doom for the project. Haukur 18:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

When you say that you can revoke paying for any reason that includes the article not fitting your POV which again is another way that this is gonna become a POV pushing tool. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If they revoke it because it doesn't fit their POV, that really does mean that Wikipedia has done its job: the article has improved, yet it doesn't support any side's bias. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

But the general threat of it being revoked if it doesn't meet their POV is still usable as a POV pushing tool. JoshuaZ 18:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Poeple, where is your 'assume good faith'? WP was not supposed to work at all, and here - it works! This is not supposed to work, but here - it works in Germany! Everything can be used for evil purposes, but does that mean it will be? I say, give it a test run, for a week or two. I am sure no atomic bombs will explode. Renata 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Existing 'guideline' link: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF applies to individual editors. It doesn't mean we need to make mechanism that make systematic POV pushing easier. And as I said in the strawpoll, we have heard very little from German editors to know how well it has worked there. JoshuaZ 18:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now, if someone wants to push their POV, they can do it themselves, or hire someone to do it without anyone on this site knowing about it. By making this mechanism we open this up to full view and accountability. Not only do I think this needs to be done, I think it needs to be handled on Wikipedia where we all can watch it and take care of it in an open and democratic fashion. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Luckily AGF only applies to editors not to ill thought out schemes to pay editors, and I say that with all due respect to whoever thought up this idea.Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't see how this would make us any more vulnerable to POV pushing than we already are. If someone wanted to get their POV into a featured article, wouldn't they, er, just try and write it in themselves? Why would they go to the expense of spending money to try and get someone to do it for them through a Bounty Board which would be watched like a hawk by dozens of highly-suspicious Wikipedia admins? If you want to push a POV, you want to be sneaky about it.— Matt Crypto 16:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's buying an ally for the revert war. Septentrionalis 21:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And would be spotted in an instant. — Matt Crypto 06:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rename

As Angela pointed out, Wikimedia Foundation isn't hiring. Your fellow editors are. I think "Paid editor job board" is a good name, don't you? — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable :) --Kickstart70-T-C 19:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly an improvement, although I'm not sure if people would necessarily want to be implicitly labeled as "paid editors." But the avoid the possibility of multiple moves, any changes should probably be held off until debates on whether to keep the proposal have wrapped up. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 22:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like this name or the old one... but I can't think of anything dramatically better as of yet. Wikipedia:Editors for Hire? Meh. --W.marsh 01:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better, if it is accepted, to just incorporate it as a subpage of the bounty board: "/Editor bounties" vs. "/Foundation bounties". They are both in the same general family. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that, especially since the current name has too much monetary connotations - I'd imagine this not only useful for real cash bounties, but also for editing tradeoffs (like the German implementation is mostly used, e.g. "get article x featured and I'll destub 10 articles in category y"), or for "get me something off my Amazon wishlist", or "I'll send you one of my prize-winning homemade cupcakes" type arrangements, which I personally prefer to cold, hard money anyway. :) -- grm_wnr Esc 12:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "Editor bounties" to "Paid editor job board". — Matt Crypto 16:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Editor bounties" sounds good to me, too. And I don't see why the current bounty board can't just be re-worked to include both.--ragesoss 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the suggestion "reward board" below works quite well. Editor bounties or a reworking of the bounty board would be ok as well. Dislike the current title a lot. BigBlueFish 08:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

re: FSF example

Phil, I see you added a mention of the FSF hiring programmers. I think you got that info from my oppose vote. Could you please add the rest of the description, namely that being a full-time employee of the FSF has no resemblance at all to being offered 10 or 20 dollars to do some isolated task, which is what this proposal seems to be (going by the scale of rewards offered on the bounty board and on the German page--the German payments are referred to as "Kopfgeld" which also means bounty). The FSF salary made it possible to cover your living expenses while working there, so that you could quit your day job and devote all your energy to free software (or docs, I should have mentioned that, the FSF also hired doc writers), which you couldn't afford to do without a salary. If you were already making a living some other way that you weren't willing to give up, the FSF wasn't interested in offering supplemental part-time income--that's what Ebay is for. The bounties and rewards that I see becoming available here aren't remotely enough to make a living; they'd basically just be symbolic and cater to mercenary fantasies that I don't wish to encourage.

Also, most FSF staff worked in FSF office space--a few worked remotely but IMO that didn't work out as well. So an FSF job was like any other: you were expected to show up at work and get stuff done every day, and to some extent, the tasks you did were the things that couldn't easily be done by volunteers. So whatever it is you're trying to say about Larry Sanger or the FSF, I don't think it supports your conclusion. The Wikimedia foundation does in fact employ some people--Danny and Brion and maybe some others--and will presumably hire some more (technical, admin, editorial, or whatever) as WP keeps expanding even if it's not doing so at this moment. That's the type of position Larry Sanger's old job, or FSF staff jobs, should be compared with. If you want to fund such hiring, it's better to donate to WMF through the usual channels.

I'd possibly be more supportive of creating some real paid editorships, i.e. I might contribute to a fund to hire someone to edit full time for a minimum of 3 months, hopefully getting some substantial project done in that time. Summer is coming and maybe some Wikipedian currently in college would be interested in such a gig. Phr 00:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You are of course free to continue drawing pointless distinctions. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 04:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I don't see anyone objecting to the FSF or WMF hiring full-time staff members, but most participants in the strawpoll so far oppose the current proposal, I think the community mostly does not share your opinion that the distinction is pointless. Perhaps that's a sign that you're not thinking it through. Phr 11:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it says more about the people opposing this proposal than it says about me. Some people are more prone to fallacious thinking than others. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 14:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, time out, you two. As with an awful lot of tricky issues, there are perfectly valid arguments on both sides of this proposal. I'm not sure whether we'll ever reach consensus on this issue, but we certainly won't do so if we start out by insulting each other's intelligence or powers of reasoning. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that (Hypocrite warning: I've also been rude on this page, which I regret. Let's disagree with civility, even if we've strong feelings one way or the other.) — Matt Crypto 16:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So...

We got a straw poll now. Thus here begins the wikilawyering: The straw poll is pretty evenly plit as of now, with a slight tendency towards oppose. Now that's a prime example of "no consensus". So, what does that mean? Does it mean that there's no consensus for using this process, and so we can't? Or does it mean that there's no consensus for forbidding this page (i.e. a policy against paying editors), and that we can? Also relevant is that people keep arguing that this is not policy, but a noticeboard (it is, but it does set policy by precedent). That might sound ridiculous, but suppose someone would have made another decision than MfDing this process page, and would have set up an anti-soliciting policy page instead? -- grm_wnr Esc 16:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's just like any other Wikiproject. Unless there is consensus it can't go forward, it can. Unless there is consensus that you can't have a gaming Wikiproject, you can. This is the same as any other paid reference work creation folks. Actually it's better because the work can be balanced out by other people's research to refute points and balance the POV. - Taxman ^Talk 16:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How about we trial it for some period, and then evaluate it? Given the level of hysteria from some people about how this will "completely destroy" the project, it might be helpful to demonstrate that in practice, it's likely to have only modest effect even for good, given the German experience. — Matt Crypto 16:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. How about 3 months, with the understanding that if things go to hell in a handbasket the whole thing dies? That should give plenty of time to bring this up to speed and have some understanding of how well it does or does not work. My money is on it not making a lick of difference. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any incarnation of this whether temporary or not and so do the majority of people who have weighted in on the straw poll. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you do. You've been very clear on that. If I counted correctly (no guarantee) it's 12 support vs. 15 oppose. Since, as stated above, failure to reach consensus results in this going ahead on a trial basis, I think that's likely the outcome. I apologize if you don't like this, but no one of us owns Wikipedia, where it goes, what it does, or even what it becomes. We all individually try to make it better, hopefully creating somethat that's larger than the sum of its individual edits. That what we on the Support side wish to do as well. --Kickstart70-T-C 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Check the commented out part of the page, it already went ahead with a single trial thing and you can't dictate what lack of consensus means. Lack of consensus means that this has failed, it is dead, it has ceased to be, it is deceased, it is an ex-noticeboard attempt. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Also since only you and Matt Crypto seem to agree with a trial period you don't have a leg to stand on (so to speak) to start a trial period on a proposal that's already failed. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There's others who seem interested in a trial period, according to the straw poll. Why has this failed? In my view, the norm is to allow paid editors (such as Larry Sanger). I believe you'll need to get a consensus to block this, and there isn't. This morning, there isn't even a majority opposing. — Matt Crypto 06:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your rejection of this. You do not have community consensus and that really was an asshole-ish thing to do. I note that you are not an administrator but there are administrators on both sides of this issue. Seriously, you're right now the only one turning this debate into a fight. --Kickstart70-T-C 22:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what side you are on, this poll has been going for little more than a day. Rejecting or going ahead now is premature, wait (and discuss) at least a few more days. Maybe we can even strike a compromise of some sort that keeps more people happy than just roughly 50% (yeah, I know, I'm a dreamer), -- grm_wnr Esc 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

See my comment below, I'm assuming good faith that the people who support it will let it go if this poll shows that there's no consensus for this but the fact that people are pushing for oh we can't get a consensus to do this right away and many people are fundamentally opposed to it so lets do a sudden trial or lets compromise point of view which makes me feel like people are trying to do this any way they can even if it's against widespread consensus. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Equally, it seems you're very committed stop this whatever way you can, even when there's no consensus for it. Look, why not discuss this further, rather than flame about it; have your concerns not been asnwered? — Matt Crypto 06:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it your the only one being incivil here at the moment because your pushing against two straw polls and a massive number of threads stating that this is a bad idea and isn't wanted and I'm assuming good faith in thinking you'll eventually back down when you realize that this has failed but apparently that hasn't happened yet. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Give a straw poll time before claiming it says anything. At this instant, it is running towards support, but that could reverse again. I personally wouldn't judge whether consensus is developing before May. And doesn't the degree of consensus ultimately needed depend on whether it becomes a policy, guideline, or practice??? GRBerry 17:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that something like this might be useful in encouraging work on topics where we have a systemic bias. I'd like Wikipedia to have better coverage of Africa topics but I don't have even basic knowledge there and don't feel I can usefully contribute. But I'd be willing to put up a small amount of money to encourage people who know more to contribute in the area.

Maybe this could be one way for us geeky, young, western, male people to atone for filling up the 'pedia with our own geeky, young, western, male interests while the Third World is largely ignored... Category:Icelandic poets has 37 articles, Category:Sudanese poets has 2 articles. Sudan has more than 100 times the population of Iceland. Haukur 16:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Depending on your understanding of the word "small", I'd be willing to match you on a bounty for Africa topics. — Matt Crypto 16:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, to carry my example a bit further I can type in Swedish literature, Icelandic literature or even Faroese literature and get decent or half-decent articles. But when I type "Sudanese literature" into that little box on the left I'm told: "There was a problem with your search." Damn straight there was a problem with my search - the problem is that we don't have an article on the literature of the largest country in Africa. We have a paltry subsection in Culture of Sudan which consists of a list of writers, mostly redlinks.

I'd be willing to part with 15 quid for a decent article on Sudanese literature. It wouldn't have to be a featured article (though that would be great and really help increase the credibility of the project in ways that another Pokémon on the front page will not), just a readable, referenced and reasonably long piece of text. And I'm not picky - if you'd rather write about "Literature of X" where X is one of the ethnic groups or languages of Sudan I'd be fine with that. Haukur 17:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Props to FrancisTyers for making a start! :) Haukur 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Groovy. I'll offer £5 for whatever Haukur thinks is a decent article on Sudanese literature, plus £10 for any featured article on a Sudanese topic. — Matt Crypto 06:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already placed a regular bounty on Virtual community a few weeks ago. I will put my money where my mouth is and match that bounty with one here (meaning: I will donate $20 to the Foundation, and give $20 to the editor who substantially causes the article to be worthy of FA status, and it's accepted as that). Assuming this goes to a trial run, of course. --Kickstart70-T-C 22:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Question: suppose Editor A, a random Wikipedian interested in the subject but not an expert, spends 16 hours doing servicable, but not all that inspired editing to the article, adding 800 words of text that are based on general knowledge and maybe a few Google searches. Editor B, an expert specialist in the field, spends 16 hours in the library researching some specific (but not crucial) point for the article, then comes back and adds one or two sentences and a few citations that were very difficult to find. At least in terms of hours, they've both done an equal amount of labor for the article. In terms of words and visibility, A has done far more. In terms of what makes Wikipedia amazing, maybe B has done something that nobody else could do and which couldn't happen in a professional encyclopedia (e.g. Norbert Wiener worked at Encyclopedia Britannica and was required to crank out a thousand words a day, making that kind of in-depth research impossible for anyone with deadlines to meet), while something like A's contributions would likely have happened naturally as part of the ongoing growth of the article. How does the $20 get divided? Assume for the question that A and B each want the whole amount, or at least an unequal division favoring themselves, based on the above arguments. Notice also that even if one of them gets the full $20, that's only $1.25/hour. Phr 23:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be up to me at the time, wouldn't it. Assuming I knew that each had done 16 hours of work (my god, I hope they don't, for this pittance), I'd probably just split it between the two evenly, as they've each helped the article substantially. On the other hand, if I come to the article and don't know the research time involved, the person who wrote the 800 words would like get my vote as someone who "substantially caused" the article to reach FA status. Is this perfect? Heck no. Life's not perfect and neither is Wikipedia. At best, I can hope to be as fair as the evidence before my eyes allows. --Kickstart70-T-C 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No one should edit believing they'll get any of the bounty. Payment is at the sole discretion of the poster and this should be looked at more as an entry to a contest than a guaranteed trade. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 01:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is probably completely the wrong place, but I'd love to see some kind of journal access available for Wikipedians. I'd probably just ask for any money I got to contribute towards a general "journal fund" so everyone can have the kind of access I have being at university; JSTOR, ScienceDirect, IngentaConnect, Web of Science etc. And no I didn't stub that article for money, I just thought it was a worthwhile topic to stub :) I also agree with Zocky (below) that this would be a good off-site "affiliated with Wikipedia" idea. - FrancisTyers 21:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea too, though; sort of how Wikinews gets reporters press passes. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Name change

How about just changing the name to "Rewards board"? Make it explicitly non-exclusively monetary. E.g. the reward could be almost anything; books, cookies, editing-in-kind, money, postcards, a subscription to a journal, anything. - FrancisTyers 19:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've said above, I'm all for it. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support this suggestion. It needs a name-change; it currently still implies employment, or regular payments being made, whereas this is about random spontaneous individual rewards. Rewards board is catchy. BigBlueFish 22:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Congressional edits

As Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress shows us, even congressional staffers in the United States federal government have spent time "on the job" trying to skew Wikipedia.

Isn't there currently only one known case of editing being done "on the job", as opposed to people merely doing their own thing while at work? Andjam 06:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well this kinda thing is hard to document, you know. But there was certainly a spyware IM client that had an article up for months, written by the company, and it was finally revealed that they were bragging about using WP for free advertising. So there's definently more than one case. Bodog for example, too, I personally got a message on my talk page from the company VP that he had had a staff writer rewrite the article I'd copyvio'd, and apologizing that the initial version he had had posted wasn't acceptable... which was kind of disturbing. I've seen publicists and agents blatently adding fluff for their aspiring model and actor clients. It does happen, and it happens a lot. --W.marsh 13:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Straw pool for WP project?

In essence, this board is a project of WP community, very similar to Esperanza or Counter Vandalism Unit. And since when these projects need straw pools to begin? Did Esperanza or CVU had straw pools? No. Did Bouty board had straw pool? No. So why here? Ok, the topic is controversial and there is a lot of opposition, so we have a straw pool. OK. But then it should be a consensus to oppose to terminate the project because the default is that similar projects are up and running as long as someone wants them. No? Renata 11:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll, I think ;-) But I agree with you. Presumably those opposing might argue that it's such a radical page that the opposite is true; i.e., we need a consensus to set it up, but I simply don't think that's the case. If the German Wikipedia experience is anything to go by, then it's hardly going to radically change anything about how Wikipedia works. Still, because it's controversial, I'd propose activating it for a trial period. — Matt Crypto 11:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As Matt Crypto said, because this is a huge departure from the standard way of doing things I think any activation even a trial one requires consensus, I also think that CVU is a bad example since even though there was some objection to it it was only after it's adoption that people objected not before or during it's creation. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Three simple questions

I can't find answers to these amidst the banter above, yet without them this proposal is fundamentally flawed.

1. Where are all the rich Africans who will offer bounties for the improvement of their local areas to counteract systematic bias, as the proposal suggests? Do they outnumber the number of rich American business owners on Wikipedia?
2. How can we expect the Featured Article system to remain reliable when people have financial interests in the promotion of an article?
3. Why should I make improvements to an article for free when I know that someone else is being paid to do so?

The mere fact I asked the second question trumps the idea in my opinion. People will ask it. I honestly admit that I would have to consider it myself. Therefore, propose a prominent bounty for an article and the number of benevolent contributions will fall. Cue breakdown of the whole Wikipedia spirit and destruction of all human knowledge (okay, maybe not the latter).

Also, I know that it's perfectly possible for such bounties to exist off Wikipedia, but I think that it's prepostorous for this to be considered Wikipedia policy, or even tolerated in the medium of Wikimedia's servers. Wikipedia policy forms how people see the project. BigBlueFish 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

With regards to your second question, do you not feel that it would be addressed accurately by my above suggestion, that individuals who offer or work on a bounty would be disallowed from voting in any administrative action related to those articles (FA, AFD, etc.?). For the first question, I know that I myself would like to help a lot of the areas that we have systemic bias on, and would be willing to help contribute towards that. -- Creidieki 19:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

With regards to your first question - people already write about what they know and read about what they are interested in. If we have more coverage on computer programs that types of baking flour, that is not a bad thing. Johntex\^talk 19:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Rich American business owners know that it won't look good to set up bounties for articles on their own companies. They also know that it might look good to set up bounties on important, badly covered African topics.
2. There are, I think, enough good Wikipedians watching every FAC discussion to ensure that inadequate or biased articles are not promoted. And ultimately the FA director makes the final call on the merits of the case. You could conceivably use well-crafted sockpuppets to influence the discussion but I'm not very concerned. People are mostly nice. I won't say it's a completely moot point but I just don't see it turning into a problem. The media might misrepresent this project - but then, they always do.
3. I don't quite follow. If you're editing an article with a bounty on it you're presumably as eligible for the bounty as anyone else. Haukur 20:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

1 it doesn't matter if that occurs or not. If it doesn't it doesn't mean the idea is a bad one.

2, because it works perfectly well now in the face of determined POV pushers and heavily biases religious/belief/other POV's. Money motivation is no worse than those, and probably less actually in the case of religion.

3, because you do it now. The existence of any paid editing doesn't change anything about the information being free or the value of your edits.

Opposition to this seems to think that our project will be ruined if money is accepted for any edits, but that ignores the fact that a huge amounts of paid work is involved with free software and those haven't imploded and huge number of highly regarded reference works are paid for and no one worries about that. This will just bring it more out in the open so potential conflicts of interest can be countered. Many of us get paid for our work in the real world but that doesn't automatically mean our work has no value. - Taxman ^Talk 20:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong with #2. Financial interest is not a POV. POVs tend to be sincere and constant. You can discuss, debate, argue and seek common ground with somebody who genuinely holds a POV. The goal of most people with strong POVs is for articles to reflect their version of the truth in the article, because they genuinely believe it to be true. Now, compare this with an editor whose primary motivation is to make money. Zocky | picture popups 21:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say it was a POV, but you're essentially saying they will try to promote a POV, which is of course possible. But the more important point is someone with monetary interests isn't going to be worse than someone with a strong POV. To obtain the monetary reward they would in fact have an incentive to please both sides in the debate and come up with an article that meets our policies, something that people with a strong personal POV don't necessarily have. If they didn't, they wouldn't get the monetary reward. And if your point is that someone whose goal is to make money doesn't have a sincere and constant POV, then that could only lead to them being less successful in slanting an article. - Taxman ^Talk 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Honest people with strong POVs don't slant articles in the end - they just want their side told, and that usually makes articles better, not worse. People who are doing it for a financial reward are both less likely to be honest in their intentions and less likely to know what they're talking about. Both makes them more difficult to deal with. Zocky | picture popups 23:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's just complete conjecture on your part, and a bit of blind optimism on the side of people with strong POVs of various sorts. Blind optimism that is refuted by common experience. - Taxman ^Talk 04:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would people who are doing things for a financial reward be less honest? People do all sorts of underhanded POV pushing things for politics, ideology, and even religion. — Matt Crypto 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding (1), I don't know how many rich Africans would want to fund articles, but I do know that some people want to help improve coverage of African topics using bounties. That would be a good thing. (2) FAC is reliable even when dealing with bigger motivators than money: pride and fanaticism. (3) Why do you edit articles now for free? Why would that motivation change simply because someone else was being paid for doing similar things? — Matt Crypto 22:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I offer my answers:

1. There are other people, say in the US, who would pay for improving Africa-related articles. The person does not have to be in/from Africa. Besides, we are not tallking about 1000's of dollars. We are talking about $20 or so, or even no money at all - a postcard, a cupcake, a trade, etc. I don't know where people are getting the idea that corporations would be offering rewards (are any corps offering anything on Bounty board? don't they have their own staff to do it?)
2. I expect that people on FAC would scrutinize the articles from this board in much greater detail. They would know that the editor was paid for the efforts. That is a transparency this board offers. We have tons of experience dealing with sockpuppets. Personally, I would adopt a following policy: any abuses during FAC -> offer terminates instantly and no money are paid; if the nomination fails, but the article is still greatly improved, I would still pay the editor (maybe not the whole amount, but a great portion of it).
3. Because you are doing it right now. It's not like thousands of people are going to offer thousands of dollars for improving articles. The rewards would be offered for those articles that noone wants to edit. You wouldn't normally edit those articles. Say, you love The Beatles and you edit Beatles-related articles. Now would something change about you and your motivation if someone offered a reward for editing Sudan-related articles (and you don't give a darn about Sudan or Africa in gereral)? It's not like rewards are offered for any edits or just for simply editing or being Wikipedian...

These are my thoughts. Feel free to disagree. Renata 22:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this last response summarises well good answers to my questions. Thanks to everyone who made the effort to respond. I still have some concerns, but I'm convinced now that the board can be a good thing. It is particularly important that the scheme is presented in the right way - I feel that the proposal as it stands does not currently do that, which is why I think it attracted the criticism. I don't think the terms "now hiring", "paid editor" or "job" should be used. That's not what they are. They're bounties, or rewards, and the presentation should reflect that, though obviously making a distinction from the bounty board. It also needs to be considered what happens if two people are interested in one reward, or somebody takes up a reward and sits on it, leaving a long time without getting the article much nearer FA status. It would be impossible to tell who deserved the reward if two people both tried for it, so unless they agreed to split it, I think the subject would have to be rejected as too popular. These things are all ones that can be worked out though... BigBlueFish 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A potentially great idea, but...

People probably already get paid to edit articles, even to push POVs. A more transparent way to make some money from the time invested in editing would be welcome. But, this sort of thing should definitely be done off-site, with clear separation from Wikipedia.

The absolute non-commercial nature of participation in Wikipedia has been one of our longest-standing principles. Wikipedia is a project run by a voluntary community, which is kept together by the common understanding of the goal and the fragile balance of mutually acceptable compromises on methods for achieving the goal. Introducing a potentially very divisive new dimension for unknown benefits doesn't sound like a good idea. We founded a foundation to take care of the financial side of affairs, precisely because we didn't think Wikipedia was the right place to deal with money.

And BTW: Larry's former position is in no way precedent for this - Larry wasn't paid to edit articles, he was paid to direct and regulate the community (i.e. to replace Jimbo as the executive power), much like what Danny is paid to do now. Zocky | picture popups 20:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that "non-commercial" nature has been a long-standing principle. Larry Sanger was "editor-in-chief". Perusing his contributions from that time, he did indeed get involved with article editing. Larry was paid to work on Wikipedia in an editoral capacity, and is a precedent. Moreover, I've seen nothing in any of the lists of Wikipedia principles which state that Wikipedians must participate solely in a non-commercial capacity. Our goal is to write a free encyclopedia; if bounties help us get there, then that's a good thing.

Moreover, I think you are overestimating the impact of a bounty board. It's likely to have only a modest impact on the way Wikipedia works, and will not be a radical "divisive new dimension". Wikipedians will still be volunteers, and 99.9% of edits will still be "non-commercial". If the German experience is anything to go by, it will be merely, "just a small puzzle piece in the quest to motivate people to contribute to Wikipedia", to quote Mathias Schindler. — Matt Crypto 22:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Involving money where no money was involved before is indeed a radical new dimension. Something is infinitely times more than nothing. I never said Larry didn't edit articles. Editing articles was indeed required for doing his job (and nobody was stopping him from editting articles outside the scope of his job), but he was not paid to write the encyclopedia. Zocky | picture popups 22:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Sanger was a paid editor-in-chief...and therefore a precedent for paying editors. Additionally, and the mathematics of infinity notwithstanding, I would again argue that bounties would have very little effect on the general nature of the project in real terms. It's not going to have a radical effect. Most edits and editors will still be completely non-commercial, but occasionally some Wikipedians may take up or offer a bounty or two. — Matt Crypto 22:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The word editor in "editor-in-chief" doesn't mean the same thing as in "wikipedia editor". The point is, Larry Sanger was paid neither for the same things not in the same way.

About it not having a major effect - that's exactly my point, btw. The proposal is already proving divisive (we even have a tag on top of this talk page), while nobody expects it to have more than a marginal effect on the encyclopedia. Zocky | picture popups 23:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather than debate that particular point, what was Sanger's username on here, if any, during his tenure? We can see if he was making contributions while being paid. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if he made contributions while he was paid, does not follow that he was paid to make those contributions. - FrancisTyers 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Even Zocky said, "editing articles was required for doing his job". It's exceedingly difficult to avoid the implication that he was being given money in order to edit Wikipedia. It's a precedent that falsifies Zocky's original assertion about the "absolute non-commercial nature of participation in Wikipedia". It's simply not true. — Matt Crypto 06:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

His username was (not surprisingly!) User:Larry Sanger. — Matt Crypto 06:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read the FAQ on the main page, you'll see a link to Larry's contribution history. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a new and radical idea. We stole it from the Germans. Does the German Wikipedia have worse principles than we do? No. And yet they have more success. Allowing editors to post and give away rewards for jobs well done is not a new and radical idea. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 23:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How Germans do it is the problem of the German Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is different from other Wikipedias, because the editor base is vastly more culturally diverse. Not only Germans edit the German Wikipedia, but compared to the English Wikipedia, their editor base in practically mono-cultural and people are much more likely to perceive issues such as money in similar ways. All in all, many things that can work on less international projects can't work here. Zocky | picture popups 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, but the German experience gives us a vague indication of how things will work, which is better than completely uninformed speculation. (For example, it's quite clear that the project won't be "completely destroyed" by bounties). But why not trial this for a while, to see how it works here? — Matt Crypto 07:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, marginal or not, I'm against forbidding anything that doesn't need to be forbidden. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Stability is what keeps communities running and we often should and do choose not to implement a new idea. Not at all the same thing as forbidding things. Zocky | picture popups 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so stability is good. Got it. How does that impact this idea? What can it possibly hurt that turning the program off can't reverse? The only problem I see coming out of this is contingent on poor handling. Specifically, if paid edits are treated differently than any other edits (that is, not based on their content, but on the fact that they have some nominal value associated), then I see a huge backlash and potential exodus of volunteer editors (as has happened with a few community-developed knowledge bases before when money got involved and employees were percieved as contributing the "really valuable information" — IMDB comes to mind). However, I think that Wikipedia can weather any moves in that direction as long as the board makes it very clear that no such bias is to be tolerated, and a quality edit that is well sourced is as "valuable" as any other edit of similar quality. -Harmil 20:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests for funding

I think it would also be useful to have a section for requests for funding, e.g. "I'd like £20 towards purchasing this source in order to improve the article on X". The payment could be in advance or after the article is improved, or the benefactor could purchase the item for the requester, and so forth. — Matt Crypto 07:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Aghr... Let's just focus on first on "regular bounties." If they work, we could try this too. One step at a time, please. Renata 13:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but one definitely outside the scope of this proposal. How about creating an additional proposal for this (and let me know where it is, so I can vote in the strawpoll ;-) --Kickstart70-T-C 16:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Further to MattCryptos suggestion, how about a section where people can request sources. e.g. I can get stuff from the British Library, and other sources for free through my University. Perhaps someone has heard of a paper that they think may be able to help with an article. They could post a reference and a question. e.g.

"What does 'Computational and evolutionary aspects of language' in Nature (416), 2002 say about 'Cultural evolution of language with constant universal grammar'?"

And someone with access to that article could post an answer. Obviously taking copyright into account. - FrancisTyers 22:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's do it

After a week, the poll was 30/20 in favor of support. Since a sizable majority actually favor this proposal, there's clearly no consensus against it. So we're underway. Incidentally, I'm also taking the initiative to move this to "Rewards Board" as previously discussed. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 23:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

WTF? 'No consensus against it'? Since when did we initiate new processes with 'no consensus against them'? If there is no consensus, then we keep talking until such times as there is. --Doc ^ask? 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a process, it's a noticeboard. Bounty board didn't gather a consensus in favor of itself before starting, and neither has any Wikiproject. Consensus would only come into play if, say, you tried to ban or regulate rewarding editors, which would be a new policy, and you would have to have consensus in favor of that policy. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 23:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Nobody has to get involved with bounties if they don't want to, unlike policy. — Matt Crypto 23:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and brave move. Still, I predict great fiery brouhaha about whether this needs consensus to go ahead, or whether it needs consensus to be blocked. I'm ever hopeful: perhaps critics could agree to come back in, I dunno, a month and evaluate whether it's indeed as terrible a thing as they feared? — Matt Crypto 23:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to try this. And I still say you've no consensus to do so, please let's make it very clear that this is in effect a bullitin board and is not in any sense 'official' or sanctioned or approved by wikipedia or the WMF. --Doc ^ask? 00:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Some disclaimer would be good. I'd be quite happy to have a statement saying that it had not been sanctioned or approved by the WMF — that's perfectly accurate. I'm not sure it would be true for "Wikipedia", in the sense that at least some of the community (maybe even a "majority", judging by the poll) support it. — Matt Crypto 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but it isn't official. It isn't policy. It may have a majority support, but we don't adopt 'official' processes on mere majorities. Anyway, we are haggling over words - the main thing is to say that there is no official encoragement (or discouragement) of offering or seeking rewards - and it is, and remains, an arrangement between parties concerned - so don't bother e-mailing wikipedia if you don't like the outcome of any transaction, and don't try to use our dispute resolution mechanisms to settle or enforce any understandings reached. --Doc ^ask? 00:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup, OK, sounds sensible. — Matt Crypto 00:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay

After re-evaluating my previous stance on this I don't see why we can't at least give it a trial run (I'm assuming that's what it'll be), I've even put up a post and am willing to pay my own money to get Megatokyo up to featured. The great thing about this though is that anyone who gets one of these requests can actually get more than one at once. For example if someone completes mine they get also have completed Philwelch's as well as my bounty board post (meaning I owe $50 do the foundation) so it's a reward for them and the foundation. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Disaffiliation with WMF

Per the discussion two headers above, it's clear that those in favor of a cash incentive program are currently outweighing those against it (at least out of the editors who participated in the straw poll). I'll concede that willingly, but I want to underline how important I feel it is to include a notice that rewards/cash/whatever are in no way connected to the Wikimedia Foundation at the top of the page. That way there'll be no misunderstanding that any payment comes from a private individual or party — a clarification not so much for the editors who'll take up the work, but for outsiders who could potentially misinterpret who's footing the bill. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

K. I've added a note to that effect. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 06:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Phil. Well written. Now, onto another potential issue (listed below)... Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The reverts

I have to take issue with reverting this back without further discussion. I won't add to that, but I do find that not allowing this to go through for reasons that Ambi you never articulated why you're against is a bit heavy handed. No other volunteer process that doesn't relate to deletion, etc, needs consensus to go forth. After the FAQ was up and discussion had developed the recent votes were something like 10-3 in favor of the proposal. This is not a policy that will be enforced. It's just something some people want to try. Deciding that there has to be a consensus to go forward is not right. - Taxman ^Talk 04:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. There's no consensus for Ambi's reversions.— Phil Welch (t) (c) 06:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Regulation of payments

Another thing came to mind concerning potential legal issues. While I recognize that payments offered here can take a number of forms, many unique (i.e. Phil Welch's offer of a limerick... and who could turn that down?), there should probably be a guideline created to prevent things which would create legal (and possibly ethical) problems. While Wikipedia is very much a worldwide project and is not bound by the laws of any particular country — I think — it would be wise to avoid any future problems by prohibiting some forms of payment... i.e. narcotics, sex, etc. I realize there may be some subjectivity to this, but leaving it wide open is just asking for serious problems, not to mention an early end to a project that I know many have taken an interest in. Any suggestions? Perhaps a starting point would be to prohibit payments of goods or services which are outlawed in the country of origin of the offering party, the responding editor's origin, and the countries which host the Wikimedia servers (to prevent lawsuits which could arise over facilitating such an exchange). Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but my instinct would be to postpone crafting complex sets of rules until people actually start doing silly things like offering narcotics or sex etc, both to avoid instruction creep and WP:BEANS. If it does happen, we can use common sense to remove such bounties. — Matt Crypto 08:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this website bound under the laws of the United States? That's where Wikipedia Foundation and this English Wikipedia originates, right -- Florida? 20:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Targeting

The FAQ above says: "In particular, it could be used to help combat systemic bias. Bounties could be set to encourage work in areas that Wikipedia currently covers poorly".

If there's no defined formula to which articles are chosen, then there will be a lot of articles picked that don't match this desire. We need to encourage work on articles that Wikipedia covers poorly. Otherwise the perception that Wikipedia is just good for a few science and nerdy articles will be increased.

I suggest targeting some articles. File:Bias map small.jpg

1. Benin
2. Burkina Faso
3. Burundi
4. Cameroon
5. Central African Republic
6. Chad
7. Comoros
8. Congo Democratic Republic
9. Congo Republic
10. Côte d'Ivoire
11. Ethiopia
12. Gambia
13. Georgia
14. Guinea
15. Guinea Bissau
16. Kyrgyzstan
17. Madagascar
18. Malawi
19. Mali
20. Mozambique
21. Burma AKA Myanmar
22. Niger
23. Papua New Guinea
24. Suriname
25. Tajikistan
26. Tanzania
27. Togo
28. Turkmenistan
29. Western Sahara

The above list was compiled by Ethan Zuckerman - and it's of the most under-represented countries. If these countries could be targeted, then a lot of Wikipedia's short-comings could be reduced. In relation to the countries listed, I'm talking about these articles:

• History of x
• Politics of x
• States and territories of x
• Foreign relations of x
• Geography of x
• Flora and fauna of x
• Economy of x
• Demographics of x
• Languages of x
• Culture of x

Given Wikipedia's general antipathy towards experts, the Reward Board may become vital to get them to contribute to Wikipedia. After all, what expert would want to contribute to Wikipedia when he will probably be reverted by a 14 year old a few minutes later. Being paid for the edit would lessen the irritation a bit.

-Xed 11:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Added Languages of X. — mark ✎ 12:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• So how would you suggest we phrase these bounties? I was thinking about offering a small monetary amount (perhaps $5) for "one paragraph with one printed citation". But if I pick just one article ("Culture of Suriname"), that seems unlikely to get done, If I say "anything on the list whatsoever", that almost seems too likely to get done by someone else anyway. Alternatively, I'd be happy to throw my $5 into the ring if others wanted to pick one of the articles and make a FA bounty. -- Creidieki 13:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• • How did you compile this list? Renata 07:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested guideline to avoid bias

I'd like to attempt to get consensus on one of the guidelines I suggested earlier. I'm hoping to do this one-at-a-time. I suggest the following guideline:

• Users who are offering or fulfilling a reward request on an article should not support or oppose administrative actions on that article, particularly WP:AFD and WP:FAC. Comments should be prefaced with a statement of reward involvement.

Obviously, if you're paying me to bring an article to FA status, I have a strong incentive to see that it becomes a featured article, and you have a strong incentive to see that it doesn't ("Nope, sorry, keep improving it"). I think that this is a very common-sense guideline, and I'm probably going to suggest it on Wikipedia:Bounty board too. -- Creidieki 12:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The restriction on administrative actions makes sense, but I think using Featured Article status could be a problem. The "Featured Article" process on Wikipedia is rather politicised and argumentative. There is also a very high barrier for achieving Featured Article status. I can imagine someone working for hours on an article, only for that article to miss Featured Article status by one vote. The editor would be resentful, and why make encourage resentfulness when someone is prepared to do so much work? Therefore I would suggest lowering the barrier, and using good article as the main quality target. Or at least having two separate bounties, say $30 for Good and $50 for Featured. - Xed 14:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The question of bounty design is kind of separate from this guideline proposal. Featured Articles bounties certainly aren't the only type possible, and may not always be the best type. But the guideline doesn't speak on that at all. It simply says that if there *is* a Featured Article bounty on an articles, the offerer and fulfiller can't vote in the FA discussion. -- Creidieki 15:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. - Xed 15:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think WP:GA is a good target for a reward. Only one person is needed to promote the article. I think disallowing voting is a good idea, though of course they should be permitted to make comments, since consensus discussion is an important part of Wikipedia. BigBlueFish 15:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think people should declare any bounty involvement on FAC, just like if you're a primary author ("self-nom" etc...). I'm not sure about forbidding votes, though. For example, we don't (AFAIK?) forbid votes from co-authors, some of whom may have a similar drive to get it featured. The very wise FA director can use common sense when counting bounty votes on FAC. — Matt Crypto 18:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming style

Okay, I've read this page a few times now, and each time it's bugged me. Shoudn't the person offering the reward be called the "offerer", not the "requestor"? I know that they're requesting something done, but this board is a list of rewards, and the relationship between the reward and the author isn't requesting. Any objections if I change the current list? BigBlueFish 15:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No objection! --Kickstart70-T-C 15:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk page notices

One of the things that worried people about this idea is that it risked opening up the project to bias in some way - one way around this, especially if substantial rewards are available or if substantial work was done in the hope of receiving a reward, would be appropriate templates to place in the talk page. This would increase the amount of openness in the process. Does anybody else agree?TheGrappler 20:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:Bounty board#Template. Another problem really is that a number of rewards are for a group of articles ("anything related to medicine") so you cannot have templates on all medicine-related articles. However, I see nothing wrong with posting a little note on WikiProject's, Portal's, or Notice Board's talk page. Renata 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking about notices, I put one on WP:CBB. Renata 21:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the actual giving out of a reward will presumably be linked to work on a particular page, perhaps that would be a cue to include a template saying "User:Blah received a reward of $50 from User:Foo and €30 from User:FooToo for bringing this article to featured status"... and if a request is available for a specific page only, a notice saying "A reward of $30 has been offered by User:Moneybags for bringing this article to featured status; for more information, see WP:RB". I agree that in a lot of cases it would be problematic or just plain overkill ("User:RewardSeeker received a personally dedicated rude limerick from User:PoeticMischief for bringing this article to featured status") but in some cases it would probably be a good idea to be more open. TheGrappler 18:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me that bounty offerers would naturally want to mention the bounty on the talk page anyway, in order to increase the chances of finding a taker. — Matt Crypto 18:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A dreadful day

Wikipedia is no longer an all volunteer effort, but has now entered the commercial world. The effect is most likely to be the opposite of that intended - slower improvement not faster. I am logging out and going away to weep. CalJW 01:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm still a volunteer! Besides, its not commercial, because Wikipedia isn't paying anyone for anything. Imagine if I told my buddy, "Hey buddy, I'll give you a coke if you help me copyedit this article." Then he helps me out, and gets a coke. Cool. This is the same thing, only you don't have to be sitting next to me, and it doesn't have to be a coke. We're all still volunteers. Phidauex 01:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the things currently on offer, and I think you'll agree that even following up one of the offers is as good as volunteering. Most request that some incredibly obscure article be brought to featured status, something that would take months of work and research, all for around 20 bucks. One off contributions like the BMI pictures request are being rewarded with absolute pocket money. Try to see it as an opportunity for increased mutual support among the Wikipedia community. It's a simple incentive for people to recognise the mostly benevolent contributions to free knowledge by their peers. $20 will be spent in a day on things like food and transport. A featured article where there wasn't one before will last forever (or until somebody has to update it!). BigBlueFish 11:03, 29 April (UTC)

I'd encourage you — before you get underway with too much weeping — to have a look at what sort of bounties are being offered and exactly how much impact it's (not) having on 99.9% of users. — Matt Crypto 18:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In that spirit, I'm leaving the project for the duration of this abomination. If that ends up being for good, so be it. Best of luck, y'all. -Colin Kimbrell 03:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could just work on the drama queen article. --Kickstart70-T-C 04:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote on your user page that "[the reward board] encourages the perpetuation of systemic biases within the encyclopedia, it creates numerous conflicts of interest among editors, it greatly simplifies the efforts of outside POV-pushers, and it opens up a whole host of issues related to data collection and personal information." — do you have any evidence that it does this in the few days since it started? You can't have, you only have what you suspect will happen. So why not actually wait until it's demonstrated that this has happened before quitting? — Matt Crypto 06:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it's pretty much inevitable that problems of the sort I described are going to show up a couple months down the road. Why should I stick around, just to see something bad that I already know is going to happen? If y'all really want to go ahead with this, I'm not going to have any confidence in the project going forward, and it doesn't make sense to keep investing time and effort into something that I don't trust. I already feel bad about all the things I've added over the last year or two, like I might just as well have written them on paper and thrown them out the window. -Colin Kimbrell 16:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just sad and frustrating to see you quit over what is essentially a belief: that is, you don't have any evidence for your fears. Indeed, the evidence here and on de: is that the opposite will happen. I mean, if you quit after you'd seen Wikipedia go down the tubes, then that would be understandable. But to do so based on what you're afraid will happen seems irrational. — Matt Crypto 17:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As you've noted, I have a strong belief that this is a misguided effort with potentially disastrous consequences. As such, it would be nonsensical to disregard my beliefs when choosing a course of action. It'd be a strange world if people assumed at all times that they were completely wrong about everything they believe, but that's essentially what you're suggesting that I do here. -Colin Kimbrell 20:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking you to evaluate why you believe what you believe. It doesn't appear to be based on evidence. — Matt Crypto 23:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Order

It looks like there's no agreed order to the entries on the Board. People are adding entries to both the top and the bottom. The bounty board uses alphabetical order, but that's based on article titles, and the entries here have more creative titling. Maybe newest should go first, to make it easier for people following the list. Sound fair? If so, I'll rearrange the current list based on history. BigBlueFish 11:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do! It would also be useful, I think, if each bounty was also marked with the date it was listed, so people can spot ancient bounties and perhaps ping the requester before accepting it etc. — Matt Crypto 18:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. I also added a little guideline section about posting rewards. BigBlueFish 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Equivalence to de:Wikipedia:Auftragsarbeiten

When I went to de:Wikipedia:Auftragsarbeiten to see if they were linking to this page as an alternative language, I found that it already links to the Bounty board and the Bounty board links back to it. I don't speak a word of German, so how similar are the two? Does the German version combine both private gifts and donations to the Foundation? Or maybe the mutual linking was only because they were the only close equivalents. Somebody German please enlighten us! BigBlueFish 22:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I do speak German. :de:Wikipedia:Auftragsarbeiten is identical to the Reward Board, as it is intended for transactions between editors, not between editors and the foundation (as is the Bounty Board). I've changed the interwiki link accordingly. Maybe the Reward Board and the Bounty Board should in some way be combined? Sandstein 07:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmh, it's not really similar but the idea is the same: at the german site you will not find any donations of money for articles. The site now runs for nearly a year and it is one result, that those donations like tit-for-tat or translations, where the Donator writes another article for one of his choice as payment, are the best working fields. Greetings from germany -- Achim Raschka 09:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have this

I have to say I was very surprised to find this at WP:SIGN. It's very similar to the offer I have at my wiki of US$5 for a 200 word article. Great minds think alike. Gerard Foley 23:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Allowing proposals in addition to requests?

In addition to have people request the completion of a project and offer a reward, we could also allow people to offer the completion of a project and request a reward. A little bit similar to my now long defunct Free Software Bazaar. Cheers, AxelBoldt 16:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that is against WP spirit. Renata 16:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Somebody mentioned requesting things like reference books in order to improve articles. That might be acceptable... saying "I'll work on this article if you give me money" isn't. If somebody thinks they have a valid proposal, how about they bring it up here and we'll see whether it should start a new part of the board. BigBlueFish 17:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the above two comments, offering to give rewards is one thing, requesting rewards is another and would be entirely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we avoid this phrase "against the spirit of Wikipedia"? Nobody, in any of these debates, has offered a definition for it. Moreover, it will vary from person to person. It'd be much better if you could say what you mean by "spirit of Wikipedia" instead. — Matt Crypto 21:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think requesting rewards is against the spirit of Wikipedia, it's just pathetic. Requesting resources and reference books might be okay though. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Reliable sources can often be expensive to get hold of, yet we demand editors cite them. It's not in any way a moral failing to ask for financial assistance for that sort of thing. — Matt Crypto 21:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just a pathetic and an immature manner to gain recognition. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

But is there a difference between "if you do A I'll reward you by doing B" and "I'll do B if you reward me by doing A" ? AxelBoldt 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In one sense, no, but perhaps the typical motivation would be different. I don't think it matters enough that we have to ban requests for rewards or anything; people are likely to be put off by overly-mercenary posts. — Matt Crypto 15:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

organizing based on reward type

I reorganized the requests based on award type, as I imagine this list is eventually going to get quite long, and people coming here might only want to look at requests offering money or requests offering edits (tit for tat), etc. This way, people who come here looking for reward opportunities can hopefully find what they are looking for quickly. For example if some impoverished teenager in South Africa decides that he wants to make a living by writing Wikipedia articles, he can come here, jump to the Money section, find a few articles of interest, go to the library, write some articles, and collect his payment. Of course such a techno-utopian wet dream may be absurd, but at least now it's possible :) How do other people feel about this kind of organization? Kaldari 20:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's good, just don't re-organize it again :) Renata 20:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed :). Although I do think the idea of anyone earning a living off these things certainly far-fetched! Half of the current requests are pretty difficult to fulfil, and I make the board total $209 at the moment. BigBlueFish 10:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should organize by topic type...just a thought. --Osbus 22:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If the board got a lot larger then this might be something to consider. The problem with categorising by topic is that Wikipedia is very broad. Even with liberal categorisation you would only be able to find a couple of offers that come under the same category. There also have to be a good number of rewards for someone to come here with a certain topic in mind. For now, this order works best. BigBlueFish 12:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

One additional possibility would be to organize by reward type and then by expiration date. My offer on Nazanin is about to expire, but it's a little hidden. Maybe someone has a better way to handle the expirations? --Kickstart70-T-C 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect people to choose a reward because it's soon to expire. For most cases the expiry date is a sigificant time off, for the purpose of protecting the offerer if they forget about it. Finding a reward that you're able to do is more difficult, so being able to check for new items easily is somewhat more useful. If other people do want to be able to browse soon-to-expire offers, maybe a section could be added to the top/bottom listing "offers to expire soon", linking to their section further down/up the page. BigBlueFish 16:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Nazanin offer was easy money. Extend your deadline, and I'm sure someone will take it. Wareh 03:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Results so far

Well so far the results of this project have been:

• One completely new article has been written
• One new photograph has been created for an article
• $12 have been donated to the Wikimedia Foundation

Maybe this project isn't going to single-handedly destroy Wikipedia after all :) Kaldari 17:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And an hour of work on Winneba (city in Ghana). Indeed, a time of apocalpyse for our beloved project ;-) — Matt Crypto 17:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The problems with this project aren't the sort that will become apparent right away. It'll be months or years down the road before things obviously go 'round the bend, but it's basically inevitable that they eventually will. When you build on a flood plain, you might not have wet feet a month later, but sooner or later the day will come when your furniture's floating out the front door. -Colin Kimbrell 16:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the opposite is true in this case. Over time, we'll be singing the praises of this venture much more loudly. Mark these two diffs down somewhere and we'll see who ends up being right. I'll contribute US$100 to the Wikimedia foundation if 5 years from now this was deemed (by consensus of a straw poll advertised in a neutral fashion to the village pump) to have done more harm than good. Johntex\^talk 16:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion is unproven, and the evidence indicates the opposite. — Matt Crypto 17:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a wiki without the drama queens. If this project will indeed lead to problems, you have been presented with a choice. Either continue to contribute, and when things start going wrong do something about it, or abandon Wikipedia and let it go on without your input. You chose the second, solving nothing. You can't justify abandoning this when it's working at the moment, pre-emptively of misuse. That would be like deleting George W. Bush under office actions because someone is bound to use the article to defame him at some point. BigBlueFish 16:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have elected to "abandon Wikipedia and let it go on without [my] input", and I only posted here again in response to a post by Matt on my talk page (which he also cross-posted here), as it seemed uncivil not to reply to his direct remarks. As for WP:RB "working at the moment", we are (as I noted earlier) far too early into the process for any evidence one way or the other. Cheering because the entire project has not collapsed within a week of this project's inception is both naive and unseemly; even Enron didn't come apart that quickly. You'd do much better to try and address some of the critical flaws of this board BEFORE a crisis develops. With the minimal guidelines in place right now, what will happen the first time someone welches on payment of a proposed bounty? How will you address the conflict of interest inherent in having an editor eligible to vote on the AFD/GA/FA status of an article in which they have a financial stake? How will you ensure that a patron doesn't help create/perpetuate a systemic bias by offering a large number of low-dollar bounties in a particular field, in order to swamp coverage of rival perspectives in that field? How would you deal with a news pundit's accusation that article coverage in Wikipedia can be bought like ad space? If someone feels that they have been treated unfairly here, where can they seek redress or arbitration? If you don't have answers to these questions (and many others), you need to take some time out from the self-congratulating and start devoting some serious thought to the issues. Either way, though, I guess it's not my problem anymore. -Colin Kimbrell 20:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The site has mechanisms to deal with people that want to write POV articles, people who seek redress for being treated unfairly, etc. Our systems will work just as well at resolving complaints by/about/between paid editors as they work with unpaid editors. Johntex\^talk 20:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your questions are already answered. If someone doesn't pay a reward, nothing happens, except people learn not to trust that person. On AFD and FAC, people will presumably comment if a commentor has posted a reward related to that article. I'm willing to--are you? Systematic bias fostered through this process will be countered the same way we already counter plenty of systematic biases already, and this process is a tool towards that end. Media relations are the Foundation's problem, not the community's, but in putting this forward as a reward board instead of a job board we're already addressing that misunderstanding. If someone thinks they've been "treated unfairly" here in terms of not being paid, there's nothing he can do about it--he just didn't win the reward. We have answered all these questions. You simply refuse to listen. Let's make a bet here, alright? On May 4, 2007, if the reward board hasn't destroyed Wikipedia, you have to come back and keep editing. If it has destroyed Wikipedia, then I'll MfD it myself. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with both of your posts on a number of points:

• As Phil notes, the current disclaimer states that bounty board disputes are not under the purview of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, and as such, our current systems will be entirely unable to address any complaints connected to this board.
• Providing no mechanism for "feedback" about untrustworthy patrons is irresponsible, and it potentially exposes the Fountation to legal liability for hosting offers of this sort (unless the language at the top of the page has been vetted as ironclad by the Foundation's lawyers, which I don't believe that it has).
• There is currently no method of determining that an editor is working on an article in order to collect a bounty, except for self-reporting under the honor system. We wouldn't have any idea whether an editor was advocating a particular status for their work out of selfish or altruistic interest, since we're required to assume good faith and it's entirely possible that an editor could work on an article without knowing about a reward offered for work on that article. For this reason, policing will be difficult, if not impossible.
• Media relations are everybody's problem, not just the Foundation's, in that anything that damages the project's reputation also damages the project. Can you imagine the downside potential if we start seeing "Wikipedia ripped me off" articles in the popular press? They might not be fair or accurate, but they'd be quite damaging regardless.
• Current measures of countering systemic bias are inadequate, and simply describing this board as a tool toward addressing general bias is not helpful, in that it does not address the bias inherent in the non-random selection of patrons offering bounties (as people of different interests will necessarily have different economic resources at their disposal).

To he honest, I think that your offer is something of a sucker bet. If Wikipedia is "destroyed", what good would it do to MFD this proposal after the damage has been done? And in any event, why would I want to monitor the situation from a distance for a whole year to assess things? I'm not posting here in the hope that someone will talk me out of my decision; I've pretty much made up my mind on the issue, and saying "I'll stay if you do X, Y, and Z" would simply be emotional blackmail of the grossest sort. -Colin Kimbrell 21:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Then leave. You're not doing a wonderful job of that yet, but maybe with practice you'll be able to pull it off. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have posted only in response to remarks that were addressed to me, because I felt that it would be rude to ignore them. If anyone has anything further that concerns me, please take it to my talk page. -Colin Kimbrell 23:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies Colin, and while you quitting over this is one of the strangest things I've seen on this site for a while, I wish you the best. Don't forget to check back in a year or two, and if your fears aren't materialised, maybe we might see you around again? — Matt Crypto 23:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Over a year later, the world has not ended... --Grey Knight ⊖ 16:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes by volunteer editor of paid editor's work

I hope this hasn't been addressed up the page .. if it has been, I apologize.

Given a paid editor's work on an article, would the article be automatically semi-protected in order to protect the investment in the article? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hell no. That would defeat the whole point of Wikipedia being a wiki. --Carnildo 23:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anyone who supports this venture supporting article protection in this regards...as Carnildo says, that goes completely against the project's principles. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that it would be a bad idea ... but that doesn't mean it might not be done and I'm wondering if such a thing should be explicitly stated as a matter of policy rather than depending on the spirit of the project to make it anathema. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm a bit confused about your question. Articles can only be semi-protected under the semi-protection policy. Having a bounty on the articles doesn't change this. It's already a policy matter that administrators shouldn't use their administrative powers on articles they have a content intrest in, and that doesn't change because of bounties either. If an administrator semiprotected an article they were editing against policy, that would be reverted when found, and I'm sure that the various disciplinary procedures would not look at the bounty as a favorable motive. But all of these policies already exist. -- Creidieki 04:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's make this clear. Rewards on this board are gifts not wages. Nobody but the reward offeror takes any responsibility for delivery of the reward, and offering it doesn't change anything about the policies regarding how people go about editing the Wikipedia. The contributions made by editors are still free to the Foundation and licensed under the GFDL. BigBlueFish 12:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Payment question...

I saw this on the main page:

Reward board is similar to the bounty board, where a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation is awarded for an article's promotion to featured status instead of payment to a specific editor.

So who does the money one gets from doing one of these monetary tasks go? Can I, say, collect it myself as I have heard from other sources, or must I donate it to the Foundation? (I'm not greedy, just curious ☺.) → J@red  22:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The rewards from the Reward Board are paid to you or (by your request) can be paid to the Foundation instead. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

List Reward board at the community portal

Could we have the reward board listed at the community portal under the "things to do" heading? This is the most logical place for it to be listed, otherwise there is no obvious way to find this page. It just took me 5 minutes to get here and I knew what I was looking for. What about all the people who do not know this exitst? Witty lama 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw...

...this message from Jimbo, and thought it might be of interest to the people offering rewards. Nothing that isn't already common sense, but still... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What about this?

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-08-14/Wikimercenaries

Altruistic

Even when we have the opportunity to work for money, we turn it down. Truly we are doing this for the love of knowledge! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Deprecating the "Money" section

Sorry to have deleted so much of the Reward Board, but it just seems to be in clear violation of a very handy guideline called COI-Financial. Can anyone explain how this conflict within Wikipedia lasted so long? --JossBuckle Swami 05:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

'Cause it's not a violation. If you read the guideline you will see that it talks about companies that could spam Wikipedia in hopes to attract new clients. Let's examine more closely:

1. you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes);
   • None of the rewards offered here come from a company. They come a Wikipedia-addict like me.
2. you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia, as, for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing
   • again, nothing to do with companies. All rewards are non-profit and seeking no other benefit apart from seeking more and better articles in Wikipedia.

A lot has been discussed before the board was established. It's been running for a while and nothing bad happened. Your deletion is unjustified therefore reverted. Renata 06:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for deleting a reward offering is does the reward offering encourage bias moreso than simply asking a friend to help fill out an article. Offering a few bucks is no big deal. Offering a job is way out of line. In-between offers need to be evaluated with intelligence and understanding and not mindless bright lines. WAS 4.250 07:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the Wikipedia community has its blinders firmly in place. What about this request on the Reward Board? You folks seem to be "know it alls" when it comes to justifying things that are done "among friends", but policy is policy. You can't have one neutrally-writing party that took money for editing banned by Jimmy Wales, while you endorse and applaud other neutrally-writing parties editing for pay, just because (you think) you know they come from "Wikipedia addicts" like yourself. How do you KNOW the motive of these requests on the Reward Board? You don't. And that's why they violate WP:COI. I won't re-revert, though, because hypocrisy is simply the norm at Wikipedia, and it forever shall be so, I imagine. --JossBuckle Swami 14:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Motivations don't matter since we don't read minds. The point is whether it appears it will help or hinder Wikipedia as a free neutral encyclopedia. I recommend that you try to gain a concensus for your views somewhere (WP:AN or WP:COI or village pump policies page) or maybe just delete one offer as a reasonable act of boldness (and see what happens) )as deleting an entire section without discussion appears to lack consensus. WAS 4.250 18:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I support this deletion as a useful drawing of a line in the sand because while there is no bright line it is useful to remove the worst cases. Also deleting one at a time, giving the community time to digest each, provides a way for a consensus to evolve over time about what should be deleted and what should not be deleted from the reward board. This is an excellent beginning. WAS 4.250 09:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the setiment stated by WAS (and also the deletion of the article being used for a book). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 11:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this support. Still, it begs the question -- why do we "punish" the person who chooses to reveal his intentions, while letting slide those that don't state a possible conflict of interest? Once again, no good deed goes unpunished on Wikipedia. --JossBuckle Swami 13:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the ability to go in and see what is in the person's mind, but if I did, I would be charged with murder. But, I do not see much evil intent with this board. We are pretty much doing the same thing as the bounty board, but instead of WMF getting the cash, we can get it. We could always donate it to WMF, especially now, if we want to. But honestly, Wikipedia is not going to the dogs or flushing down the drain due to this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Proper indentification

This page is somewhat misleading newbies. It needs to be clearly marked so that it does not presumed to be anything official. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a wiki edited by volunteers; very few pages could be described as "official". I think the last two paragraphs of the intro, the ones starting "The Wikimedia Foundation is not hiring" and "Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for why substantial offers are a bad idea" are sufficient caveat regarding official-ness and CoI. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)\\

Samuel, where all this idea of monetary rewards come from? Seem to be completely outside of policy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been a Wikipedian since 2004, have 30K edits and I am an admin, and this is the first time I came across this monetary reward idea. To say that I am shocked, is to put it mildly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:COI says "A conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the concerns or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article." Unless you're being paid to write a non-neutral or otherwise inappropriate article, then there isn't a significant conflict of interest.

When we talk about monetary conflict of interest, we're talking about making a profit off increased sales, or writing articles as a business (as User:MyWikiBiz was); the amounts currently on the 'Money' section of the board range from $5 to $50, plus one for three months' ISP costs (worth at most, what, $90?) If you managed to do all the 8 months' worth of requests in the 'Money' section, including the maximum 10 of Kelly Martin's request and the maximum 9 BMI pictures, you'd get just over $300, plus 3 months' Internet. That's not even considering that it would be a heck of a job for one person to be able to write featured articles on such diverse subjects, and some requests, like Madness Combat, may be impossible. From a volunteer perspective, that's worth thinking about, but in business terms it's peanuts. The amounts involved are too small for this page represents to be a threat to CoI. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It really does not matter if it is $300 or $3,000. I am bringing this article to the attention of the community at the Village pump. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Having watched this page for months, I've never seen a request that troubled me. The page as a whole, and the money section in specific, don't violate WP:COI in my opinion. A specific request could violate it.

I've also seen no real evidence that the page achieves anything much. The page received about 100 edits in the first week after going live; mostly adding requests. It has received only 85 edits since May 2, 2006, including bot edits, so lets call it about 11 edits per month. It looks like about 2 edits on average to create a request, so if the page weren't growing (it is a little), that would be 3-4 requests either fulfilled or withdrawn per month. I'd say this thing is pretty much irrelevant to Wikipedia, given the general growth curve we are on.

The whole concept of monetary rewards was a major focus of discussion before the page went live. See almost all of Wikipedia talk:Reward board/Archive 1. Essentially, it went forward on the basis of being the equivalent of a Wikiproject, which can be done whenever multiple editors want to work together, and will exist unless policy requires elimination or consensus is formed for eliminating it. An earlier version also went through an MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Now Hiring. I read (now) and read (then) the discussion as being that there were major concerns (and Jossi's are among those previously expressed), but that the straw poll showed more support for going ahead than for stopping.

My personal opinion is that the page is pretty much useless, because even 10 articles being changed a month due to this page would be the equivalent to adding a drop of water to the Pacific Ocean - it just doesn't matter. GRBerry 04:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

GRBerry has pretty much described the situation surrounding User:MyWikiBiz, with the "drop of water to the Pacific Ocean" analogy. My research shows that MyWikiBiz had authored maybe, at most, a dozen articles that were intended for publication in Wikipedia. MyWikiBiz also stated in a few places that several of the articles were done gratis. Some were perfectly acceptable content, others not so hot. But, even if the average "take" on the paid jobs was $79 a pop, that's probably less than $500. Considering that easily 100 person-hours must have gone into MyWikiBiz's business set-up, promotion, editing, and defense of that editing, we're looking at maybe a net wage of $5 an hour. Yet, Jimmy Wales got very personally and directly involved to STOP the work of MyWikiBiz. Furthermore, we see no such backlash against the Reward Board. It all strikes me as, at best, very peculiar; and, at worst, quite hypocritical. --JossBuckle Swami 06:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Especially when one considers all the free publicity Jimbo gets for Wikia... --kingboyk 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that myWikiBiz had an obvious conflict of interest. There is no conflict of interest in me offering $25 to improve Emma Goldman to FA status. Kaldari 06:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What was MyWikiBiz's "conflict of interest"? If their intent was to stay in business and cooperate with the Wikipedia community (which it was clear they initially intended to do, being that they fully disclosed their intentions to edit NPOV content for pay), then it would behoove MyWikiBiz to write AS FREAKIN' NEUTRALLY AS POSSIBLE, so as not to get themselves blocked, their article(s) deleted, and clients embarrassed and asking for refunds. I think Wikipedia generally got it all wrong here. Let me ask you this, all-knowing Kaldari -- did RedHat have a conflict of interest when they implemented improvements to the Linux code? Did Linux perish shortly after for-profit companies got involved with the coding? --JossBuckle Swami 05:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There might be a conflict of interest. How would we know? Maybe you're a member of her family, or you're trying to promote a Goldman-related project like a book or a movie. In the post-Essjay world, I don't think we can afford to just take your word for it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing about conflict of interest as it relates to this issue. I am arguing that this page, including the "tit-for-tat" reward and the monetary reward, is not aligned with the volunteer community spirit of Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with doing a "tit for tat" at all I see it as "returning the favor" for past deeds. There are plenty times where I have done stuff for people because they did things for me in the past, so it does build a community spirit. It fosters communication and friendship, and a lot of editors like to be among friends on Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that any type of reward, encouragement, gift, trade, or reciprocation is counter to Wikipedia's volunteer community spirit? Seems like a needlessly rigid position to me. You do realize Wikipedia has paid staffpersons, right? Kaldari 19:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zscout370: there is nothing wrong with "tit for tat" editing at all. In fact, it is a fun way of editing and the only thing it can do is improve the encyclopedia. Consider the "African countries and cities" tit for tat offered by Matt Crypto. Here (diff) is how Winneba was improved in one tit for tat round, and this (diff) is the concurrent expansion of Navrongo. (See the discussion leading to this round.) How exactly does that not align with the volunteer community spirit of Wikipedia? — mark ✎ 09:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

vulnerability

Considering the increasing criticism of WP as a result of the recent events, I suggest that the money part be removed. Not that it has done any harm to WP, but that it does provide a possible opening to adverse criticism Even though trivial sums of money are involved, any criticism of it will be adverse indeed, Someone with unfriendly preconceptions will notice it sooner or later, especially because its listed on the Community Portal. DGG 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's fine the way that it is now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Money good. Welcome to open content. "if they won't do it for $0, maybe they'll do it for $30000" --Richard Stallman --Kim Bruning 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm actually impressed how well this is working. I don't see any improper requests on the attached page, and who cares if folks are getting paid? Hell, I wish I was getting paid (and am available for hire! :P) --kingboyk 17:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Silliness

This board made sense when there was genuine money for hard work: $50 for an FA, for example. Now it mostly seems to be a pat on the back for a ridiculous amount of work: make an FA that meets all my expectations and I'll give you a barnstar. Or even "make my userpage pretty, check everything with me, and maybe I'll give you a barnstar". Can we cut out this noise and return to something a bit more sensible? There are plenty of other places to make requests for volunteers. This is the place for requests that would find very few takers. Stevage 07:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not many are using the page now, so there is nothing wrong with it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Rat and I just put up some serious money - $150 for a FA, and $50 for up to 10 GA. Of course, you have to write about furries . . . GreenReaper 02:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to clean up the page a bit and weed out some of the chaff. Kaldari 15:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing now though is that the nonmonetary awards were pulled and I don't know if the offerors were notified of this or the change in scope of this board to more "serious awards"; if the intent of this board is for offers beyond barnstars, then the barnstar/award tasks can be refereed to User:The Transhumanist/Award Center, which is more barnstar focused and the deleted requests should be migrated there and the offerors notified so now they know how of both the change in scope of this board and where to post barnstar/award-only oriented tasks in the future.

I should also note that the scope of this board was quickly changed to be more "serious" without much discussion - no comments for 2 months and then a sudden change without a consensus. This isn't to say that I don't agree that this board should be focused on more serious awards and tasks with the Award Center covering non-monetary/barnstar tasks, it's just that its scope was changed very quickly and those offerors who did put up barnstar/award-oriented tasks now have gotten their tasks pulled when they put them up with the understanding that this board did encompass such tasks. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do it at the moment, but I'll try to take care of that sometime soon. If you feel the inclination to undertake such a task yourself, I certainly wouldn't object :) Kaldari 20:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This will kill wikipedia

This idea is all wrong. If we fairly spread out all the payment to those who deserve it, everybody would be get such a trivial amount of money. The argument that monetary reward will better unpopular articles has damaging consequences. Others contributing for free would then feel aggrieved for not getting paid. The whole spirit would be gone. We should invest the money in the technical side, like paying programmers etc. We shouldn't let money near the content, or (while i am at it) marketing. Chendy (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't quite see how any of your arguments relating to content providers do not apply to programmers either. Why should they be paid? Conversely, if they should be paid, why should content contributors not be paid? GreenReaper (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Plus, not many people know about this board or even give a damn about it. Plus, it has been done on other Wikipedias before we started ours, so it wasn't a totally new concept. As for building articles on small topics a bad thing; just because it is offered doesn't mean it will be taken up by anyone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Put up an offer to pay a programmer to add a certain feature. That won't guarantee that the code will be accepted. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A known problem. That's why you proceed carefully. At the end of the day, coders still get paid though. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This definitely has the potential for abuse

• Editor A requests that an article is to be raised to GA status, with a reward of whatever amount.
• Editor B raises the article to a somewhat better standard, but is in e-mail contact with Editor C and requests that the article pass GA no matter what.
• Editor C passes the article, Editor A sends Editor B the money and Editor B sends editor C half of that money.

This doesn't work with the featured article process of course, but since GA requires only one unrelated editor to pass or fail it, the process can easily be abused.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• How would editor C be involved, since usually Editor A is the one who is not only making the request, but also paying for stuff. But GA is becoming a higher standard than it used to be; so it's potential for abuse is lower than might have in the past. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If editor C is being paid, editor C is not unrelated and thus not qualified to pass the article. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's the point. If Editor B and Editor C communicate off-wiki and do not show any sign of affiliation, nobody'll know that there's something going on. But yeah, GA is becoming more thorough than it used to be, I definitely agree.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But usually around this time, it is out of Editor's A hands once the bounty has been paid. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone really think someone is going to pay someone money for improving an article without actually verifying that it is improved to whatever standard was requested? And even if the article was not improved to GA quality, at least it was improved "to a somewhat better standard". I fail to see how this scenario hurts Wikipedia. If editors want to waste their money by giving it away to people without verifying the improvements, that's their problem, not Wikipedia's. Kaldari (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And it will be delisted immediately if there are significant sourcing issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As I was going to say - it does not prevent person requesting the GA raise from also requesting that the raise be reviewed by other editors, if they feel that it is inadequate. Certainly, I would not want to reward articles that did not meet the grade. I have held back on one payment when it was unclear whether or not someone was going to challenge the elevation to GA. In the end, they did not. If they had, it would have been simple enough to wait until it was resolved one way or another. GreenReaper (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Collusion is hard to hide without improving the encyclopedia. Everyone will accept the Editor B+C team as long as the work which they produce is following WP standards. If Editor C repeatedly approves B's GA when it is not GA then the approvals will be challenged. If Editor B tries to pay more GA judges, eventually B will get reported. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Template?

Is there a "a reward has been offered to improve this article" template than can be added to discussion pages of the articles?

BTW, discussion here is old enough (and so oriented to the pre-deletion-keep) that it should be archived I think. Someone better at that than me do so? Thx. --Kickstart70-T-C 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think such a template is necessary or wise. It's better that this information is only found by those specifically looking for it, rather than shoved in everybody's faces. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Especially after surviving the deletion, I don't think we had anything to hide. There are plenty of projects that do these templates and certainly they don't get in anyone's way. --Kickstart70-T-C 00:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm just kind of leary of it. It's one thing for these rewards to be posted here, but here people have to search them out. To put them on all the pages seems just... I don't know what I mean. I'm having trouble articulating my concerns; it just seems wrong to be throwing it out there like that instead of letting people come here to find the info. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Try {{reward}}. Duh! :) Kaldari (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, added to the page I am offering for. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested expiration date max

I think it would be prudent to set a maximum post time for challenges, as some editors may post a challenge and then abandon Wikipedia. I was thinking a one year max post period and then it's moved to Expired. If the posting editor wants to repost the challenge, that's fine, but I think this would help remove some of the clutter. --Eustress (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your challenges are on the brink of conflict of interest. I hope you don't abuse this system to the point of getting this board shut down. miranda 01:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I would absolutely love to see this board shut down myself, or at least restricted to non-material rewards as I think its a disgrace to the spirit of NPOV and COI. But, given that it';s here, and that my view does not seem to have current consensus, it is perfectly in order to advocate making modifications in it, even if they would limit it somewhat. I think an expiration date is an excellent idea--there's no point in old challenges not likely to be followed up. DGG (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So, anyone else in favor of an expiration date for challenges? --Eustress (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no objection, so I'm going to be bold and set a max expiration date at one year. —Eustress ^talk 02:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bounty

I discovered this via a note left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and as an uninvolved editor who'd never heard of it I do think, at a minimum, this should be merged with the "bounty board". Whether it's eliminated entirely depends partly on how often it's used successfully (i.e. tasks completed). Recognizance (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah...the two boards have different motivations and are each long enough in their current, separated forms. --76.4.33.124 (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments on patrolled notice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Notice is no longer active. Read the very bottom. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

---

If you add a request that violates the rule at the top of the page, it will be removed or changed. For example, if you place a request today (June 7, 2009) and the expiration date you put is June 7, 2012, I will change the expiration date to June 7, 2010. I also remove expired requests and add expiration dates as needed. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC) For reference, but this notice is no longer in effect.

I kind of disagree, per OWN. Although, I commend your dedication to making this list current. Before, we had expiration dates for three years without this board being actively monitored. In the spirit of talk discussions on drastic proposals, can we wait to see what the community thinks? Thanks. miranda 01:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to maintain guidelines that have been agreed upon in the past, i say kudos to him. But i would caution WP:own. and perhaps a tag on the top of the talk page outlining as such. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP:OWN applies here for the following reasons, 1. This isn't a space that seems to be covered by WP:OWN, and 2. I am not reverting edits, I am just changing them to reflect the rules of WP:RB. I don't think community input is necessary, because anybody could "patrol" this page. The notice was probably something I shouldn't have done but I don't think it is doing any harm. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed you reverted my edit. Instead of undoing my edit, you could have notified me at my talk page, or you could have gone here (which you did, but you also reverted my edit). I am making sure "policy" here is kept, and I will not fix misspellings, grammar etc. Only entries that violate the "policy". However, I have an alternative option. If somebody adds an entry that does not comply with rules set, I will notify them at their talk page, and they can fix it. Now, I am going to clean up WP:RB. Please do not undo my edit. Just continue the conversation here. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all the "patrolling" nonsense is all about. Remember that "Wikipedia content is collaboratively edited" (see WP:OWN); all this "I will do this" and "I will do that" is destructive to the community and is not the aim of this board or Wikipedia as a whole. And FYI, Griffin isn't even listed in the top ten editors for the RB (see counter).

Regarding challenge expiration, the one year expiration date is a good guideline that was discussed several months ago. Three years is an eternity in WikiTime, and if someone wants a challenge on here for more than one year, it's still technically feasible, so long as the challenger return and repost the challenge. As stated above, this is to keep the board clutter-free, ensure editors are available to fulfill such challenges (as editors frequently "retire" or go AWOL), and to ensure the challenges are still technically valid. —Eustress ^talk 21:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And that's just what I've done, by coming back here and updating the expiry time before it expires. It's simple and it works - and if people are checking for validity, the only thing they need to check is if the expiry time is more than one year in the future as of the day they're checking. GreenReaper (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is a draft compromise. Comments are welcome. 1. I remove the patrolled notice. 2. I only change expiration dates on requests that have expiration dates more than a year in advance. 3. I continue to archive expired requests. I will begin following this compromise immediately and as part of it, I will be removing my notice and changing the name of the section. I also want a clarification of the 1 year limit with comments from User:Eustress and User:GreenReaper. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine. And just to clarify, I think the goal is that a challenge be valid no longer than one year from today's date. However, it could have been originally offered more than one year ago (for example, in the case of this challenge) if it has been re-offered annually by the author; but it would be nice for the authors to include timestamps for all actions (e.g., Date offered: D1, Date re-offered: D2). Anyway, Wikipedia is consensus-driven, so if a challenge is totally bogus, offensive, or against WikiPolicy, then the community should move to remove it, regardless of expiration. —Eustress ^talk 14:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, one question to clarify things. Example: Offer posted June 21, 2008 expiration date July 1, 2009. Should I (or am I allowed to) change the expiration date to June 21 and leave it like that? Griffinofwales2 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If posted 6/21/08, max expiration is 6/21/09. This isn't rocket science and, honestly, it's not a big deal either way in real life. —Eustress ^talk 15:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't that big of a deal, but User:GreenReaper had said otherwise so I was just making sure. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I said otherwise because my offer was posted at the time I posted it. It remains posted then regardless of whether or not I have renewed it. If I have renewed it, the expiry date will be more than a year after the offer date, so you should not rely on them being less than a year apart. Fortunately, you don't have to. All you have to look at is the expiry date to see whether or not an offer is currently valid. And that is why that is the only thing that needs updating. Edits are already logged in the page history with a timestamp, so if you really care you can go back and look to see. GreenReaper (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

When I'm (or anyone else) cleaning up the posts, and I see a post like the one you have, I automatically suppose that you posted the 2010 expiration date in 2007. I am not expecting an extension so it would help if you would leave some sort of notice to notify users of the extension (like others have done). Griffinofwales2 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't matter whether or not I posted it in 2007. What matters is that it is currently valid, since its expiry date is not more than a year in the future. You seem to be interested in catching people out - "Aha! Your offer has gone on for more than a year! BALEETED!". Instead, I suggest assuming good faith - that the person making the offer has complied with posted rules, and has come back to renew it later. You then just have to correct any expiry dates that are clearly not within these bounds (those more than a year in the future), and remove those past their currently stated expiry date. GreenReaper (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm nice, but I also hate unnecessary bureaucracy. It is not necessary to have a bunch of renewal notices if all you are checking is whether an offer is currently valid. The assumption should be that it is. GreenReaper (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the comment by Eustress, and I really don't care about the users. Most of the time I will not notify the users that I have removed the notice, I'm just trying to keep WP:RB clean. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This thread will be archived in one week unless anything new needs to be discussed. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Conclusion Policy stays the same. If an expiration date is more than one year from the posting date, and no notice is given of expiration, it will be changed to 1 year from posting date. Exceptions: Somebody adds a notice, or somebody notices the extension in the history. I (and other users may join me) will continue to remove expired requests in an effort to keep WP:RB clean, and make sure that posts follow policy. If you object to this conclusion, read the above posts and then if you still object, take it to my talk page. Thank You. FYI The current policy was written by Eustress. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing

Of interest, including's Jimbo promise to ban anybody editing for $... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor proposal

Can we add another tag for each reward by indicating a challenge level perhaps? Some awards are harder to do than others. The offerer can define his/her opinion on how hard the challenge would be to meetOttawa4ever (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The challenge should be reflected in the reward. GreenReaper (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Suburban Express

The user Suburban_Express was criticized and blocked because some user(s) felt that it seemed to be shared username. Pursuant to the block, our posts to the reward board and bounty board were deleted, presumably because the username was blocked. I have registered a new username that is specific to an individual and is therefore compliant with wikipedia rules, and re-posted our entries on the two boards. Suburban Express President (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Example of Wikipedia related Kickstarter campaign

See [1]. Rather than offering rewards or bounties, here we have the approach from the other end. Any thoughts on this? Should this model be mentioned on this page? Cc User:NittyG and User:bobrayner. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Getting funds for the hardware or physical material needed to contribute isn't new. WM grants are given out for this all the time. That was a great example of a kickstarter: someone with the personal bandwidth to take as many photos as he can get objects to photograph, working with both a physical museum and WP and the Internet Archive to create a combined physical + digital collection. – SJ + 16:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to see someone getting with the times and using a kickstarter. In an ideal world, it would "kickstart" the community away from supporting self-righteous and self-destructive ideologies and monopolies. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Stats from the archive

I just looked at the archives; it looks like rewards given out are almost entirely barnstars, and those are clustered into a few successful backlog drives. Other uses of the board have been mostly unsuccessful. Only 5% of the rewards have been individuals getting cash; and half of those were for a single topical drive (for which we've since developed better contest-like tactics).

- 160 barnstars given out as part of four backlog drives (ce & wikification); 60 other barnstars, 1 reverse barnstar (someone offered ce in exchange for a new barnstar design), 2 on-topic gifts.

- 12 cash rewards, 4 asked for money to go to the wmf or another charity.

Perhaps what we need is a board for barnstar-challenges and contests, highlighting regular topical and backlog drives. – SJ + 18:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As we are going to keep this, do we need to tighten the criteria a bit?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Given this page is now kept (which I can understand given the voting), my question is whether we need to tighten up the criteria. Hence I have a couple of proposals below.

Should we eliminate cash rewards?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given all the hoohaa about this, do we in the spirit of eschewing paid editing eliminate cash rewards on this page? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Eliminate

1. They are completely anomalous in our present situation. It's absurd of us to strongly discourage paid editing, and then openly provide a place to advertise it. (Needless to say, I have no objection to awarding barnstars, and I am uncertain about merchandise--depending of course on its value. But cash , regardless of amount, is unequivocal. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Definitely for articles about individual people and groups of people (including corporations and groups and departments of corporations). The COI dangers are just too great. Although there is probably much less danger with articles about pure science, it's difficult to draw the line between those and about products on the market (which may have some science behind them), so I would argue against cash rewards generally. --SpecMade (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

   DGG and SpecMade - Would you have an objection someone offering cash for work done outside of the mainspace? Say, for example, giving a cash reward for someone fixing the dysfunctional mess that is Help:Table? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

   I would certainly support paying for programming, and I classify fixing help pages as programming documentation. (Tho for the example you give, I'd rather fix the way we make tables in the first place,) I'd also include the more technical templates, or reports, or any other programming. The WMF already does it. . Chapters have done so also. Any other initiatives for the purpose should be welcome. It would be ideal to have such things done by volunteers, but in practice some of it is more practical when done for money. What should not be included is anything related to policy or encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

   I had to think about that for a while. What would the motivation be of someone offering money specifically for one help page but not another, for one piece of software but not another. Most likely it would be the same as for offering it for one encyclopedic article but not another, namely to exert influence. Why should someone with money get to decide those things? Think of the large software corporation that paid money for improved article coverage of one of its own standards over a competing open standard that the community had felt was more notable. I wouldn't want that corporation to decide how our own software gets written either, or what look and feel our user interface should have. If corporations genuinely want to help, they can give funds to the foundation or a chapter, which would (hopefully) involve the community in the decisions how those funds are spent. --SpecMade (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

   I support that. To summarize it here, I would happily procure WMF funds then disperse them to get more assistance at WT:MED. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

3. It is certainly possible, but unlikely, that an editor would feel so strongly about a subject that he would want to offer a cash payment for an article to be created about a particular subject matter. But ordinarily, an editor who harbored such feelings would create the article himself. Therefore, the likelihood is that cash rewards would be offered as a vehicle for paid advocacy editing (corporations seeking to advance their public relations objectives by paying people on Wikipedia). Of the rewards currently being offered, I notice that one[2] involves a cash payment, and it is for a business, and offered by an editor who states on his user page that he is a paid editor. There is no disclosure, however, whether this offer is made on behalf of the company, and neither is there any such requirement at this time. The article was created, and talk page correspondence indicates that payment for the article is pending. While paid editing policy is in flux, and there are indications that the Foundation will be addressing it soon, I think that it would be a nice gesture if Wikipedia took a solid first step and acted against paid rewards, given the likelihood that they are a not very well-disguised vehicle for commercial operations paying to improve their stature on Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Do not eliminate

1. In my proposal below, I added the line "while posters may offer items of monetary value as rewards, posters cannot offer items of monetary value if they are affiliated with the article they want worked on". As I don't really see the difference between "Improve this and I'll give you twenty bucks" and "Improve this and I'll give you a twenty buck video game", I think that this is the best solution. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
2. As long as payment for COI editing, e.g. whitewashing or trashing of an article, is clearly excluded I see no objection to cash rewards. For the matter of that we do not "strongly discourage'" paid editing as opposed to paid advocay, not IMO should we. DES ^(talk) 22:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
3. As long as the community can veto a proposal for a cash payment (see below), I think they should be allowed. And I don't agree that there should be a restriction on who can offer a cash reward, as long as they're not asking for something improper (including whitewashing). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
4. No need to eliminate cash payments for requests for content that follows Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Sure, we should eliminate cash payments for advocacy requests, but most Reward Board activity simply asks for "better content", not "lovely content that will advocate a biased position". - I'm not that crazy (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
5. The "you must never earn money" approach does not look for me like a part of the free content / software movement. Freedom is not about the price. Audriusa (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
6. On the list of completed jobs I see only four that were completed in the past year, of which two were for cash. Dealing the coup de grâce to this moribund project would be an empty gesture: there are throngs of undisclosed hired writers on Wikipedia, and many of the sources on which Wikipedia articles are based are the work of paid writers. —rybec 20:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
7. Money is not evil. Well... maybe. Still, I don't see much problem with keeping it here. I'd just add encouragement to donate any monetary awards to WMF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
8. Why not pay users for doing things that abide by the guidelines of Wikipedia? It seems to me like an incentive to work harder to clean up the website. Meeples10 ^{t ~ c} 11:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
9. As long as it's made clear that the money will not buy them love, I don't see why it's a problematic incentive for making good articles. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
10. A cash reward is a much better incentive than a mehtastic barnstar. Odds are most editors performing the kind of tasks that are typically on the reward board will end up with a barnstar soon enough whether they want one or not.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Discuss here. Personally I find this a really tricky one for myself and am finding myself sitting on the fence (initially wanted to eliminate but now not so sure...). Happy to see what others think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm that happy about people offering cash to improve things like core articles, but for more obscure articles that people are interested in, offers are rarely taken up, so seem a bit pointless (WP:SOFIXIT springs to mind). I don't think the recent posts by User:Cla68 e.g. Wikipedia:Reward_board#Comcast_Business are acceptable however - they look to me like a paid editor outsourcing their work to someone else. Even if this might not break an explicit 'rules' it does fly in the face of everything else the community agrees on regarding editors being paid to write articles about companies. Encouraging people to add content like this is simply unacceptable IMO. SmartSE (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Looks like we have a little cottage industry here, with what appear to be contractors and subcontractors. Given the lack of COI strictures, not even disclosure to other editors (much less the reader), allowing paid awards is a scandal waiting to happen. I'm surprised Wikipedia hasn't already been skewered over these bounties. Can't say we don't richly deserve it. Coretheapple (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strengthen ability to get rid of questionable rewards

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Enable the ability of an editor to raise concerns about any particular entry and raise it for discussion on the talk page. Thus, if an entry was deemed by consensus to run contra to the aims of a NPOV encyclopedia then it would be removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Veto ability

1. In my proposal below, I added the line "If an editor thinks that a posting made on this page is inappropriate, they may challenge it at Wikipedia talk:Reward Board, and if there is a consensus there that the posting is inappropriate, the entry will be closed and archived.". I think this is the best option (and yes, I did steal the idea from someone at the MfD). Sven Manguard Wha? 05:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
2. I think we need something like this spelt out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Yes, this should be spelled out on the Reward board itself, and yes, this is a good idea. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No veto ability

1. It is currently not clear that the "Veto" means in this proposal. If any anonymous or SPA account can say no, this does not look like robust enough against the obvious abuse. If we talk about "consensus", any content or proposal can always be rejected by consensus so some special rule seem not necessary. Audriusa (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Discuss here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this is too complicated. We might easily get into more discussion than the matter is worth, by adding yet another venue for it. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on where? I thought a veto process was fairly local to this page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Limit sponsors to established Wikipedians in good standing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This might be the loop hole that allowed this idea to go bad: someone created an account, then immediately went to this page & put up cash offers for specific articles. If this is limited only to established Wikipedians -- suitably active for a reasonable amount of time -- it will make monitoring a lot easier. What exactly is meant by "suitably active for a reasonable amount of time" can be hashed out if the general idea is found acceptable.

For

Against

1. Treading into the slippery slope of "outing" other Wikipedians, and also sounds very "bitey" of the newbies. The last thing we need is more arrogant "regulars" saying that while it's okay for them to post requests at the Reward Board, the posts from the unwashed others are unwelcome. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
2. I think this would be a bad idea. As tempting as it may be to divide the world into Good Old Editors vs barbarians at the gate, I think it's the wrong way round. We shouldn't tell an enthusiastic new editor "No, you can't pay somebody else to improve your favourite topic. Only editors who've already learned how to do things themselves are allowed to outsource work"... bobrayner (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Yeah, the more I think about this - wikipedia has always been about the edits not the editors, even though I can see the rationale for this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Goes into that too often dicussion of "You're an IP so you can't do anything" or harassing new editors. KonveyorBelt 00:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Discuss here. -- llywrch (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Need to think about this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed revised introduction

In light of the recent MfD discussion regarding this page, I am proposing that the introduction to Wikipedia:Reward board be replaced with the following:

The reward board is page where users who want a specific task related to Wikipedia (such as the improvement of an article to featured article status, the clearing of a backlog, or the editing of an image) can offer a reward to editors willing to take on and complete that task.

While it is up to the person posting the reward to set the terms of the request (what is being asked for, what is being offered in return, and how long the request is valid), certain terms are expressly prohibited. While it is perfectly acceptable to ask that an article be improved in general ("my favorite rapper is MC Example, please bring his article up to GA status"), it is not acceptable to ask for specific content changes ("my favorite rapper is MC Example, please remove or alter the criticism section in his article"). Additionally, while posters may offer items of monetary value as rewards, posters cannot offer items of monetary value if they are affiliated with the article they want worked on. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for information about monetary compensation and possible conflicts of interest. Finally, it should go without saying that posters cannot ask for someone to violate site policies or engage in meatpuppetry on their behalf. If an editor thinks that a posting made on this page is inappropriate, they may challenge it at Wikipedia talk:Reward Board, and if there is a consensus there that the posting is inappropriate, the entry will be closed and archived.

The Wikimedia Foundation is not hiring contributors through this venue and no payments are made by the Foundation. This is purely a page for editors to offer rewards to other editors. Challenges may remain open for a maximum duration of one year. After that period of time, the challenge will be moved to expired requests; however, the author of the challenge may repost the challenge with a new expiration period. The aim of this policy is to keep the board clutter-free, ensure editors are available to fulfill such challenges, and to ensure the challenges are still valid.

This is the current lead and instructions, for easy comparison with the above proposed revision

The reward board is an informal page where users who want a specific task related to Wikipedia (such as the promotion of an article to featured article status or the editing of an image) can offer a reward to editors willing to take on the task. The execution and details of the transaction are the responsibility of the participating parties, and the reward can be monetary, goods (books, cookies, etc.), barnstars, or tit-for-tat editing (like improving another article). Reward board is similar to the Bounty board; however, instead of a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, payment is made directly to a specific editor. The Wikimedia Foundation is not hiring contributors and no payments are made by the Foundation. This is purely a page for editors to offer rewards to other editors. Challenges may remain open for a maximum duration of one year. After that period of time, the challenge will be moved to expired requests; however, the author of the challenge may repost the challenge with a new expiration period. The aim of this policy is to keep the board clutter-free, ensure editors are available to fulfill such challenges, and to ensure the challenges are still valid. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for information about monetary compensation and possible conflicts of interest.

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we need something like this to really clarify how it works, despite it being quite a long intro. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

the key thing is removing the cash, but a cut off date would help. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like yet another attempt to turn Wikipedia into a witch hunt, what with saying that people with money in their pocket, interested in the expansion of freely-licensed content about a subject, may not be "affiliated" with the subject. How can we say this with a straight face, when the Wikimedia Foundation politically supports "Wikipedian-in-Residence" programs and personnel? - I'm not that crazy (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The new wording looks contradictory:

[...] users who want a specific task related to Wikipedia [...] can offer a reward to editors willing to take on and complete that task. [...] it is not acceptable to ask for specific content changes [...]

(emphasis added). Many of the requests posted here have been for the creation or alteration of articles. Being prohibited from making specific requests for such changes could seriously hamper the operation of this project, which already sees little productive activity. The example given, removing the "criticism" section from an article, would almost certainly violate a Wikipedia policy and anyone who took it up would be dealt with; prohibiting all specific requests just because someone might make such a request is unnecessary. —rybec 21:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The future of this

I understand the concern about developing policies that are more in-line with modern Wikipedia, but there's no indication that this will ever take off. It's not well advertised, and someone would have to basically find it by accident. We can just let it continue its quiet fade into obscurity. Gigs (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, people could cross-post their reward board postings to relevant WikiProjects and increase awareness of the board. More eyes on the page means more people to weigh in if there's a problem, and a higher likelihood that positive/constructive postings get answered. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I am unhappy with letting things slip into obscurity - wikipedia suffers greatly with large numbers of wikispace boards and areas where people's posts, comments, queries and ideas go unanswered. We need to be more aggressive in keeping things active or marking them inactive/historical. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In an ideal world where people didn't vote to keep obsolete boards at MfD to make an unrelated political point, that would work. Gigs (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There's also redirecting. What was the noticeboard that shut down recently? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Home remodeling conflict

For awareness, especially those who expressed dismay at this becoming an ad board for paid corporate editing: WP:COIN#Kitchen remodeling companies (permlink) is discussing the recently-posted cash bounty for Home improvement in the context of appearance of COI editing in related articles. – Brianhe (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech requests

Wondering peoples thoughts about using this page for tech requests. For example I am wanting this new color scheme created as an option for Wikitext editor syntax highlighting[3] but have no idea how to make it myself. User:DGG your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)