Wikipedia talk:Reward board/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:50, 26 April 2006

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 21:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

People really pay people to edit articles? Wow... --M @th wiz 20 20 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. cooki e caper (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. cooki e caper (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". cooki e caper (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. cooki e caper (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. cooki e caper (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. cooki e caper (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. cooki e caper (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. cooki e caper (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? cooki e caper (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? cooki e caper (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:

Bounties that are deemed contrary to Wikipedia policy may be removed by any editor, subject to the usual rules for content disputes and reversion.
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)

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???

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 cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 02:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

compensation

Compensation: $20 US

subjects

Wikipedia, Economics

proposer

cooki e caper (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? cooki e caper (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: [25/17/0]

Support

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)
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)
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)
Support — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Support cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 20:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Tentative support for a trial run. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Support. The German Wikipedia demonstrates that pragmatic concerns are unfounded. — Matt Crypto 06:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Support. If it turns out to be a disaster, it can be closed later. Fredrik Johansson 07:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Support if it starts to be come problematic, we can always ban it later Tuf-Kat 10:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Support Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Support. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Kaldari 23:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Support. No harm in trying. -- JamesTeterenko 23:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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)

Oppose

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)
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)
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)
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)
Oppose - FrancisTyers 19:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Strong oppose, per the reasons given at the MfD. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 22:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Oppose. Ambi 00:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose--cj | talk 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - No way.--God Ω War 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Oppose per Doc, etc. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 11:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Oppose If people really want to keep the Wikipedia free they would use the Bounty Board instead. Tarret 22:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Abstain

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)

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. cooki e caper (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. cooki e caper (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)

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.

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?
How can we expect the Featured Article system to remain reliable when people have financial interests in the promotion of an article?
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)

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.
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.
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)

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:

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?)
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).
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)

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)

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)

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)

@@ Line 283: / Line 283: @@
 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. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">[[User:Kickstart70|Kickstart70]]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">[[User talk:Kickstart70|T]]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">[[Special:Contributions/Kickstart70|C]]</span> 18:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
-'''Poll count: [24/17/0]'''
+'''Poll count: [25/17/0]'''
 ===Support===
@@ Line 314: / Line 314: @@
 #'''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. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>[[User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club|800]]</sup> 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 #'''Support'''.  No harm in trying.  -- [[User:JamesTeterenko|JamesTeterenko]] 23:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
+#'''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. [[User:TheGrappler|TheGrappler]] 00:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 ===Oppose===