Wikipedia talk:Reward board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] FAQ and FEO (Frequently Expressed Objections)

In the spirit of the original PROD proposal, here are some FAQs and FEOs about this board so we can avoid repeating ourselves.

[edit] What problem does this solve?

This will help solve the basic problem of Wikipedia: it isn't done yet.

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: African topics, for example. Another suggestion is that it could provide incentives to reduce the large article maintenance backlog.

It also solves another problem: Wikipedians need money. More to the point, many Wikipedians pay for books and other information resources simply to perform research for Wikipedia. Reimbursing their costs will only make this easier for a large number of Wikipedians. WP:JOB could also be used as an avenue to purchase professional photography of article subjects to be released under GFDL, reducing or perhaps eliminating our reliance upon fair use.

[edit] What postings would be allowed?

This is currently under discussion, but soliciting any violation of policy (see the first objection) would of course be disallowed.

[edit] How would payment be enforced?

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.

[edit] Does this have precedent?

Yes—Deutsche Wikipedia has something exactly like this currently in place at de:Wikipedia:Auftragsarbeiten.

[edit] Won't WP:JOB open up Wikipedia for corporate-sponsored POV editing?

The fact is, Wikipedia is already vulnerable to sponsored POV editing. 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.

But, supposing that WP:JOB was active, wouldn't it be used by corporations to skew editing? Again, this is unlikely. If someone posted "Make the article Microsoft more favorable to the company" with a bounty of $1,000, the bounty itself would be delisted and countless Wikipedians would take action to protect the article against POV-skewing. If the bounty ever was paid, it would be wasted money, as the "favorable" version would quickly be reverted and the editor who took the bounty would face immediate action—even a block or a ban. It seems so much easier for someone working in Microsoft's PR department to be assigned this task without us ever being the wiser, and this is without doubt the route that our hypothetical Microsoft would take.

There's a related issue: what if the bounty was to "Bring the Microsoft article to featured article status", again with Microsoft overtly or covertly sponsoring the bounty. There's two possibilities: either the paid-for Microsoft article would meet FA standards on its own merits (in which case, the hypothetical Microsoft would have in fact helped us) or the paid-for Microsoft article would be biased. If the article itself is biased, then a large number of Wikipedia editors would oppose its nomination on this basis, and mark the page itself as {{pov}}, again derailing the FA nomination. Even in this case it would be better for Microsoft to hire PR staff instead of posting here.

Although simply having a large number of FAs related to your company in order to increase visibility may accomplish the company's goal without needing any POV editing, and the very nature of the board can further WP:BIAS, as evidenced by the Pokemon-related postings ("any Pokemon-related GA/FA"). Moulder 23:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't editors contribute out of altruism, instead of monetary gain?

Wikipedians contribute for a variety of reasons, ranging from pure altruism to logorrhea to enjoyment of the work itself. What's ultimately important is the goal—to write a free, open-content enyclopedia—not the private motivations of the contributors.

[edit] Isn't this against the spirit of open source/free content?

Ask the Linux community. Many programmers have been paid to work on the Linux kernel by corporate employers, and the Free Software Foundation has hired full-time employees to work on GNU projects. Bounty boards are also employed in open source software for bug fixes and feature requests[1]. Even Wikipedia has had a paid contributor—our former editor in chief Larry Sanger, who was an employee of Jimmy Wales assigned full-time to Wikipedia until 2002. If, as a matter of principle, we cannot accept paid contributions, then we ought to take a close look at his edits as well as all otherwise acceptably licensed photographs from paid photographers (such as those taken by NASA researchers and released into the public domain).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Image: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Pegasus1138Talk | 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. --Siva1979Talk 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Results so far

Well so far the results of this project have been:

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] What about this?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/w/Wikipedia_talk%7EReward_board_fa2d.html"