Wikipedia talk:Bounty board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

horrible, horrible idea.[edit]

The only money that should flow to wikipedia should be --completely separated from content--. Same for any money flowing out.

As for this bounty system, what is to stop an employee of wikipedia taking part in the editing? Then the money goes to wikipedia, which then goes to the employee. Blammo, conflict of interest.

Does anyone realize how we got into this recession? Exactly this kind of crap, people getting payed for stuff that they shouldn't have gotten payed for, by people who shouldn't have been paying them. I refer specifically to the Rating Agencies who gave AAA ratings to dozens of companies that went bankrupt... because they were being payed by those companies to do ratings.

Have we not learned a damn thing? What will it take for people to pull their head out of the sand as regards conflicts of interest and man's nature for corruption? An actual second depression? A third world war?

Sign your posts. Also, no, most of what you said was idiotic. The Wikipedia employees do not make money off of some percentage basis. Your last comment on the recession makes less sense than Glenn Beck. Congratulations. --Iankap99 (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

compensation board[edit]

People keep saying 'pay the editors'... maybe. If so, it should be done like the mccarthur genius grants, the nobel prizes, tenured professorships, or other highly rigorous methods of granting money, that are designed to reward people who have demonstrated that they aren't in it for the money. It might work if there is some 'board' of wikipedia admins who review the best editors and decide to give them awards or grants. Obviously the people on this board cannot themselves ever be payed... nor can they be payed at some later date after leaving the board, and nor can people who receive such grants ever become members of the board. Nor can there be a personal relationship between admins on this board and editors who get grants.

or better yet, leave things the way they are. it isn't broken, so don't fix it.

Bounty awarding[edit]

Interesting idea. I'll think about it. Who decides when to award bounty? --Fred Bauder 18:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The Bounty Keeper (who posted the bounty), i.e., the person whose money it is. – Quadell (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Suppose the award is not made until the article's point of view agrees with that desired by the bounty giver? --Fred Bauder 18:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I tried to keep it un-ambiguous: the award is given when it becomes a featured article. Little room for argument, since neither the Hunter nor the Keeper get to unilaterally decide whether an article is "featured" or not. – Quadell (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


I really like this idea; kudos for coming up with something new. Any chance of seeing it implemented soon? I wonder how many people are likely to participate. :) --Ambi 23:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  1. I can't think of any legal problems that come to mind, but I'm a first-year law student, not a lawyer.
  2. I don't see it as particularly contradictory to the Wikipedia philosophy - interested parties get to encourage work done on their pet articles, and we all gain as a result. --Ambi 06:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Great idea. I'd probably like to participate myself. One does wonder, though, what might happen if corporations or other organizations start posting large bounties. Would they be dictating our content in some way, even if the output was NPOV? Or could this become a creative non-intrusive way to 'sponsor' Wikipedia articles? --Pharos 16:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, a corporation could also pay people to write POV articles and then "vote" that the articles aren't POV. So I'm willing to try this out, and see what happens. I'll copy it into the main space when I get a chance. – Quadell (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The nice thing about the way "featured" status works is that, even if someone pays a million people to support it, an article won't become featured if even one person raises a major, actionable objection. --Carnildo 03:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


I think there should be a template on the article talk page to indicate there is a bounty on its head. --Borisblue 02:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

How about this for a start? It probably needs a stylish icon to go with it though...
MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip 03:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd rather this weren't placed on articles since it could be misued as a form of advertisement, or something that is going to make the article look POV. --Angela. 05:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Microsoft has pledged a donation of $0.50 to the Wikimedia Foundation contingent on Xbox's improvement to featured status. Please check out the Wikipedia Bounty Board for more information on how you can help collect for Wikipedia!
Why the heck would we place it on articles? Putting it on the talk page will do fine :) --Borisblue 16:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, now that you mention it, I'm afraid you might be right. Which is a shame, since I like the idea of creating some kind of challenge or motivator for editors to improve coverage on underdeveloped topics of the encyclopedia. MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip 07:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with that. Having a bounty board itself is already advertizing. We should put a template on the talk page so that the regular editors of that page know. --Borisblue 16:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Can an admin please move it from "template:bounty notice" to simply "template:bounty"? --Borisblue 17:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
There's a copy at both names now. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
No, we only want one template. It's a hassle to edit both at the same time.Borisblue 01:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
nvm I've moved it manually. Borisblue 01:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the image to that of a pirate on the supposition that buccaneers are jollier than space opera rogues. Well, I think it's an improvement...--Pharos 08:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit hesitant about this being on the talk page for the article I'm bounty-offering... I'd rather my name not be displayed so blatantly, for a number of reasons. Kalo 01:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's okay. It's optional. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 01:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I would very muchly prefer that it not be placed on the talk page. Kalo 16:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgotten biographies[edit]

These are questions and comments about the Forgotten biographies bounty.

  • Question: Who determines what articles qualify? There may be disputes about whether a bio has been written if, for instance, it's a 2-page magazine article bio or something. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I determine which articles qualify, of course. I'm only counting book biographies.--Pharos 13:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If a book was first printed prior to 1950 but reprinted with little or no changes to the actual text, are they still eligible?
    • Yes. The idea is that it's been ignored by modern scholarship.--Pharos 15:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: It seems to me that to write a FA-able article on a fellow who has been utterly ignored for ~55 years, one would need original research (since if there was a sufficient literature that one could write an FA-able, it is extremely unlikely that they would have been completely ignored in that long a time period.) For clarity's sake, who would qualify vis-a-vis the time limits, and would be FA-able without original research? --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Many, many people would qualify. A couple may have qualified already: Sverre of Norway seems a likely candidate. The only requirement is that there hasn't been an English-language biography written about them recently. There are many older sources available and many non-English sources, and there are many lives chronicled in bits and pieces in contemporary literature that haven't had a biography written on them in many decades, if at all. Here's a suggestion: find interesting people mentioned in old books and newspapers that you've never heard of before. Has anyone recently written a biography of Mordecai Manuel Noah, who had a plan to found a Jewish utopia in Upstate New York? Probably not, but there's plenty of available research material. The idea is to drive more people back to primary and secondary sources to find lives that have fallen out of our historic consciousness. --Pharos 05:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I left this comment at Quadell's talk page, but I'll put it here, too. I'm wondering about Mário de Andrade, which made FA yesterday; there's one book of criticism in English (and a lot of journal articles, of course) but no standard biography. This is everything (more or less) available in English. I'm reluctant to claim the bounty, though, since for a writer criticism seems more useful and significant than a biography. Thoughts? Chick Bowen 20:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I saw the note re: the George Psalmanazar Prize in Forgotten Biography. Thanks! Indeed, there never has been a book-length biography of Felice Beato in any language. A small number of monographs have been published on his work but apart from the (excellent) chapter-length chronology of Beato in John Clark's "Japanese Exchanges in Art" I believe this Wikipedia article is the first and most complete consolidation of the latest information regarding Felice Beato's life. Pinkville 19:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • OK, I spoke to the board of the George Psalmanazar International Appreciation Society, and they agreed (quite unanimously) to approve both Mário de Andrade and Felice Beato. They send along their congratulations on these fine works of de-obscurification. --Pharos 00:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


The FA requirement is pretty tough; if we could expand possible criteria to de-stub and make it good enough no templates like NPOV or WIKIFY or anything need to be added, or possibly upgrade an article to Good Article status- these criteria would let me participate much more fully. As criteria, we could say that it only counts when someone else (not the editor working for the bounty) removes the template/stub or adds the GA template. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

GA isn't rigorous enough. Any idiot can move an article to WP:GA, there is no vetting process. Same with de-stubbing, there is no rigorous vetting process to determine that something isn't a stub, that's why it won't work. --Borisblue 01:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Sadly, I agree. I wish there was a way to make a less stringent system work for you Maru, but when real dollars (or Euros or whatever) are on the line, it's important to leave no wriggle-room. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Hm. Here's a possibility- we could allow bounties for getting an article up to sufficient quality that a peer review raises no major objections, with major objections being determined by the bounty offerer? --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
One idea that occurs to me is that if the article makes it to the (bounty offerer's) specified status and remains there for a certain (to be specified by the offerer) amount of time... say, a month, for example, then it would pass the requirement. Although, now that I think about it, this has some problems of its own. Kalo 13:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a problem with the bounty board, it's a problem with the rest of wikipedia's lack of reviewed things like Featured Article. If Good Articles had a small, administration reviewed voting process like articles for deletion does, then all would be solved here AND people that genuinely believe they've got a good article because they don't understand what original research is or why it isn't allowed could be better "schooled" 05:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Highly problematic[edit]

I just heard of this. This sounds highly problematic; I would say objectionable. Offering money (even if the money is to be given to a charity) for doing things on wikipedia is a very bad idea. It will distort the wikipedia process. Say someone (let's exaggerate here) offers $50 million if an article makes FA status. Don't people think this will lead to a distortion of FA procedure? This is one of the reasons wikipedia does not make use of "affiliate" links for or whatever when referring to books. Any hint of pay-for-play (pay-for-coverage) is a bad, bad idea.

Furthermore, say a company offers $50 for users to bring an article about their company to FA status? Let's just say for the sake of argument it's a company that wikipedia generally has a nice article on, like, say, google. I think we can all agree that there is something somewhat not-OK with that scenario. Even if the article is totally NPOV and a wonderful example of wikipedia's work, really what's happened is that a company has "bought" themselves a place on the front page for a day (and possibly quite cheap!)

Look, I'm not saying wikipedia is fool-proof without bounties, and totally messed-up with. I applaud charity, and the idea behind it. But it seems to be a very flawed idea. That I think maybe you folks should rethink?

In what way is this "bounty board" official wikipedia policy? Was it discussed by anybody? --Sdedeo 10:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm -- there also appears to be a bounty that puts conditions on the content (the "free images only" bounty.) While I sort of "agree", this is even more problematic, since it is an attempt to use money to influence the nature and content of the article (i.e., which images are included.) Again, to take a thought experiment, say there is a very appropriate image available only under "Fair Use" (e.g., of a recent historical event); this "bounty" would distort the goal of an editor trying to make the best possible article. Again, imagine if someone didn't like creative commons, and offered a bounty for articles that do not use creative commons images? --Sdedeo 11:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Finally -- here are a few suggestions for things I think would be important to include (I am not sure what the rules are on "project pages", and in general, I think people can do sort of whatever -- I'm not going to cause an "official" fuss.)

  • Make clear that only bounties that have no "content restrictions" are allowed. i.e., the bounty can not specify anything about the article except its title.
  • Perhaps restrict the allowable categories a bounty might be offered for. For example, do not allow bounties for pages that describe commerically available products, or for companies.
  • Reject "bias" bounties: i.e., bounties that refer to articles on only "one side" of a debate. For example, reject a bounty that funds political candidate "A"'s article, but not candidate "B" (where A and B are in the same race.)
  • Have a "FA process" exemption: the bounty is not payable if the FA process is distorted, perhaps this can be specified by a negative ruling by an arbitration committee. If an article makes FA, there is a one week waiting period during which the bounty is held in escrow to see if any ArbCom complaints are made.
  • Have a statement about counting "systemic bias". Presumably, bounties are going to be for articles that people who are able to pay bounties are interested in. This will make systemic bias in wikipedia worse. Actively solicit bounties for topics outside the First World.

I don't think these will solve all the problems, but they would be a very good idea. A general "ethics" statement would be important. Again, just because the money goes to charity does not make it "clean"; many people do dirty things to make money, and then give most of it away :).

I promise you a number of groups really want their group to be featured as an FA, and will go to lengths to get there. Opus Dei is an example (I was involved with their peer review.) Their FA was denied, but they really made a solid push for it, in ways I think tried to subvert the process. Wikipedia is not a "small" place any more, and PR firms pay a lot of attention (in the OD case, it was the London office of the group.) --Sdedeo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

These are all reasonable objections, but I think the benefits outweigh the risks. I asked Jimbo Wales and a dozen or so long-time Wikipedians what they thought. Some asked tough questions, as you can see above, but eventually everyone who commented was supportive of the idea. When it appeared the Wikipedia community as a whole approved, I started the project, and the response has been overwhelmingly positive.
I'd like to address some of your objections. Even without the Bounty Board, PepsiCo could hire 50 authors to improve the PepsiCo article and make it "featured". But I'm not sure that this would be so terrible. If the content they added was POV, it would get removed or changed to make it NPOV. And if the content was NPOV, well, this helps Wikipedia. I wouldn't like the precident it set, but Wikipedia can't control what PepsiCo decides to do.
With the Bounty Board, PepsiCo could put up a large bounty for PepsiCo, but it would be risky for them. After all, there are certainly negative things in PepsiCo's history that they would rather not be brought to light, and a featured article would have to cover those. It would certainly be a delicate situation - but even without the bounty board, PepsiCo could simply announce that they will donate $1,000,000 to Wikipedia if PepsiCo becomes a featured article. I'm not sure how Wikipedia would respond to this - but Wikipedia couldn't stop some user from improving the PepsiCo article to make it featured (nor should they), so all they could do is refuse to accept the money.
I don't think any of this will happen. But if it does, I'm certainly willing to revisit the Bounty Board concept and alter it or scrap it if need be. Why don't we wait and see if it becomes a problem? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Quadell -- it's wikipedia, so we're all a bunch of squeaky wheels. I am reassured by the fact that you talked directly to Jimbo and some old hands, who presumably have an excellent sense of the complexities of these things.
I am in favor of your suggestion of letting it run for awhile and seeing what happens. Certaintly, people could do this outside the wikipedia space anyway! Something about it being more "officially" part of wikipedia still bothers me, though, and personally, I'd like it if some of the ethical issues could be raised on the main project page itself in some sort of official manner. However, I certaintly trust you and others to keep a "eye" on things, and it seems that you are aware of the possible (and remote, I'll definitely add) ethical risks involved, so if something a bit "untoward" was going on you'd make a sort of executive decision not to feature the bounty on the project page.
All the best, Sdedeo 01:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Some troublesome ones[edit]

I moved the following here because they don't fit the requirements for a bounty. I'm really sorry Creidieki! But we can't allow payment to authors for writing articles. It sets a really bad precedent. Also, so far as the development thing goes, that also doesn't belong on this page. This page is just for promotion of articles to featured status. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Complexity classes[edit]

$25.00 USD per article, maximum two (for now). Will pay directly to the author of the article, via Paypal, personal check, or money order; or will donate to Wikimedia foundation or other charity upon request.
Bounty offerer
December 1 2006
Available for any article on a single complexity class or complexity measure, such as NL (complexity), BQP, NP-complete, or DSPACE. Not applicable for general articles, such as complexity class or complexity classes P and NP.
Hey- I just noticed something amusing during my research on Lisp machines; MIT's online archives of their research papers is named DSpace! Wonder if that's a coincidence? :) --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Allow "+" characters in article titles[edit]

$25.00 USD. Will pay directly to the developer via Paypal, personal check, or money order; or will donate to Wikimedia foundation or other charity upon request. Paid upon deployment at
Bounty offerer
December 1 2006
Will be paid to the primary author of a patch to Mediawiki allowing article titles to freely contain the "+" character. The "Search" box needs to work completely, so that when a clueless user types "C++" into the main page box he gets the correct article, and interarticle links to C++ should work.

Paying editors[edit]

I like this page. One comment, however. I don't think that it's necessarily "contrary to the wiki philosophy" to have someone paid to edit Wikipedia articles. If an editor was paid, it could certainly influence his actions on Wikipedia, but much less so than strongly held convictions about, say, religion or politics, and we already handle such editors quite easily. If one editor wants to pay another editor to do a task, then that's up to them. --— Matt Crypto 16:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you might find that that is a controversial statement. But regardless, I think it's moot here, as this particular page doesn't handle paying people to write articles, whether it's wiki-ethical to do so or not. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Sure, but the obvious question becomes why shouldn't this page handle such cases? It's not a completely moot question when there are already editors who are willing to pay, like User:Creidieki above. --— Matt Crypto 17:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, for now it doesn't because those cases are controversial, and I'm trying to get this up and running with adding more controversy to the project. If someone wants to start an actual payment thing, I'd really appreciate it if they did so on another page. If it becomes the consensus that such a thing is acceptable, then the two pages can be merged. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I haven't seen any evidence that my bounties would be seen as controversial -- could you point to any discussions which show this? I think that bounties for individuals should be tried out, and the "Bounty Board" seems like the logical place to do that. Why does paying authors "set a really bad precedent"?
You mention that you'd prefer if this page be used only for a very specific type of bounties -- bounties for featured article status, which are paid to the foundation. I think that the page name (Wikipedia:Bounty Board) is more general than that. We could put a page at "Bounty Board" that linked to several different subpages (Wikipedia:Development bounties, Wikipedia:Featured Article bounties paid to the foundation), but with the relatively small number of bounties at this point, doesn't it make more sense to have them all on the same page? --Creidieki 21:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Problems with paying people to write articles.
  1. See above ("Highly problematic").
  2. A similar controversy on the German Wiki is discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-07-18/German Wikipedia bounties
  3. Fewer people would be willing to work for free if others are getting paid to write articles. (Psychological studies confirm this.)
  4. Wikipedia makes a big deal out of saying it's an all-volunteer project. See Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Press releases/March 2005, Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia.
  5. There used to be Wikipedia:WikiMoney, which was specifically made as an alternative to paying people.

I'm not saying it shouldn't happen - I'm just saying many people believe it shouldn't happen, and it's controversial. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there would be more than a few people made uncomfortable by the idea of directly paying editors. It's not so much the idea that this practice would necessarily lead to "corruption" and POV-pushing, but rather that the concept would seem to go against the "ethos" of Wikipedia which is highly-valued around here, and is one thing which sets Wikipedia apart from its wannabe imitators. Although WP is not an exercise in purposeful altruism, many regular contributors do see it almost as a kind of "public service", and bringing financial reward into the equation lends itself at least to the perception that WP is not the open institution it holds itself up to be. WP's success to date has amply demonstrated that the accolades and respect of one's peers is more than sufficient motivation for making good edits. Specific incentive schemes to address otherwise-neglected areas such as the original concept of donations to the Foundation are all well and good, as the community as a whole benefits; however, if the benefit is targeted at the individual, it becomes more problematic. The day that WP mirrors commercial enterprises, or starts charging admission (either directly or via adverts), restricts its open-access policy, or otherwise becomes (or is even seen to become) more enamoured of its own interests and open to exploitation, is the day that many valued contributors will walk away- IMO. I'm not saying that the proposal for direct editor reward here is necessarily so catastrophic, and like all things in WP there are bound to be widely-divergent views on the issue- I just think it would be wise to consider more carefully.
For example- have you thought how you would handle disputes in a case where more than one editor claimed substantial edits on an article for which a direct-reward bounty had been offered? How would you decide who "deserves" to be paid where this is contested? All sorts of ugly scenarios would seem to be possible. --cjllw | TALK 23:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
No, we have to be strict on this. All bounties must go to the wikimedia foundation. --Borisblue 18:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The thing is that we're having individuals directly pay editors. That's something that I can easily do without this page, and that doesn't violate any rules or guidelines. I could set up a bounty system on my talk page, or pay people that I know in real life. Since it's something that's currently allowed, and it's a type of bounty, it seems silly to do it somewhere that's not the Wikipedia:Bounty Board. A rule that someone who's donating a bounty can't vote in the Featured Article discussion is something that I've been thinking about recently; would that solve some of the ethical problems? --Creidieki 19:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I've removed the section again pending further discussion. We need to work out the details first- if two or more editors work on a bounty, who gets the money? I personally agree with cjllw that allowing bounties to be paid to individuals is dangerous- and there is no cosensus to allow them (Tally is 3v2 I think). I would suggest taking up an RFC on the issue to get community opinion- regrettably too few ppl visit the bounty board to really determine a cosensus. --Borisblue 19:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Please don't add bounties paid to the person to this board. This was never the intention of the bounty board, and goes very much against the spirit of it. --Ambi 23:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The thing is, you could easily run bounties from user space, or off an external web page. You can't really forbid bounties paid directly to users, because it's an arrangement between two people. Of course, there are some potential problems that might arise that are unique to bounty-motivated editing. Nothing we can't handle, but it would be best if we had an official place where people could keep an eye on it (i.e. here), rather than forcing it out of view where people can't keep an eye on it. --— Matt Crypto 16:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
No, we know it is possible, but it is not something we want to encourage. It has to stay off WP namespace. --Borisblue 16:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest that if you don't want to encourage it, just don't get involved. To forbid others seems unfair. --— Matt Crypto 17:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
We are not against it because of personal preference. We are against it because it goes against the spirit of WP itself. --Borisblue 17:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, that view is still your personal view, and I and others don't share it. I would even argue that to forbid paying editors goes against the purpose of Wikipedia, because it goes against the creation of a free encyclopedia. Volunteer editing has been, and always will be, the norm on Wikipedia, but, as far as I'm aware, "doing it for free" has never been a core principle. Ever heard of Larry Sanger, for example? --— Matt Crypto 18:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
On this talk page, at least cosensus (ie, everyone except you and credeiki) seems to indicate opposition to the idea. The "sample space" here is too small however, and I think starting a RFC survey to gauge community sentiments about the idea would be good. If indeed they think paying editors is OK, then it's OK. Borisblue 18:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Just for the record, as somebody who's actually both posted a bounty, and worked on one... I side with Quaddell. I am against the idea of paying editors, even more so against it appearing on this page. (Why would a bounty hunter work on an article that helps Wikipedia, instead of giving himself cash?) --Sherurcij 00:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me go further. I am dubious about even donating for particualr articles or edting actions, but if paying individual editors for artilces is supported by this page, or by any page on wikipedia (including in userspace) and i becoeme aware of it, i will put that page up for deletion at WP:MfD. DES (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Broke article into sections[edit]

I've tried breaking the article into sections, and putting different types of bounties into each section. This should hopefully defuse some of the problems with my previous bounties, which didn't meet the criteria listed at the top of the page. If we eventually want to split the Bounty Board into separate pages for different types of bounties, that would seem quite reasonable to me, but at the moment it seems rather silly, given the small number of bounties. Is this a more acceptable solution to people? I'm certainly happy to talk about some of the logistical issues in the individual-pay bounties with people; I've tried to make the judgment criteria a little more specific in this version, so I hope that it's a little better. --Creidieki 19:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

How to pay foundation-pay bounties[edit]

One of my pay-to-foundation bounties got made into a Featured Article (shoe polish). Are there instructions for how I should make out the donation (in the name of the primary author or in the name of the article), and how I can provide a verifiable record of the donation for people to look at? Is there a list of all attributed donations on meta or something that I could link to? -- Creidieki 19:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned both. To wit: "The George Psalmanazar Prize in Forgotten Biography is hereby awarded in the name of the authors of en:Felice Beato, principally en:User:Pinkville". During funding drives these comments are all recorded and displayed publicly. You can in fact still look up the contributions made during funding drives on meta, but for some reason contributions made during other times are not displayed. I suppose if you really had to prove it someone at the Wikimedia Foundation could send a verification. --Pharos 01:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyediting bounties[edit]

"Did anyone hear about the company who offered programmers 50c incentive for every bug they fixed? (These were the same programmers who create the bugs) They discontinued the program after one fellow claimed $10000 the first week!" (story from Scott Adam's Dilbert Principle)

Anyway, I'm concerned that it would be very easy for users to create, and then fix typos and claim the bounty! We don't have any mechanism to prevent this. --Borisblue 02:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Besides normal Watchlist reversions and rollbacks? --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that I've made a certain assumption that people won't do that. And you know, there are a couple of reasons:
  • If they're adding typos to existing material, and then fixing them a week later, I'll notice. I'm not that dumb. Even if they're using different accounts.
  • If they're adding new material to the articles, and then fixing the typos a week later, that's pretty much okay. I'm happy to pay for the new material.
  • I'm only out $10 worst-case.

But yeah, I might add a "non-self-induced" phrasing in my next one. --Creidieki 04:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Allright, but keep in mind if someone wants to gyp you out of your 10 bucks he doesn't have to correct the typos himself. For instance, I could just make very sloppy edits in one of your bounty pages. I don't have to correct the edits myself for WP to get the cash- I just have to wait for someone who will. --Borisblue 05:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess I hadn't thought about that; this bounty might make the pages slightly more attractive for vandalism. Again, if people are actually adding information, I'm happy anyway. If they're just correcting normal vandalism -- I honestly don't know. We'll see if my precious complexity classes become a horrible magnet for vandalism. If it's a major problem, then in future bounties I might have to disallow vandalism corrections, or only allow errors from before the bounty was offered, or something like that. --Creidieki 17:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
May I suggest that a condition forced on all bounty offers is that donating to the Foundation is always an option? That way, if work is manufactured, but the conditions are nevertheless technically met (so the offerer can't actually decline to pay like they would prefer), the offerer always has the option of balking the make-worker editer, and giving it to the foundation; a safeguard, in other words, since presumably donating to the foundation is not a distasteful proposition. --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually for 3c a correction I don't see it being that much of a problem. For slightly larger values,I could see some editors making mistakes on purpose. Borisblue 19:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't help but think that copyediting bounties of 3c per typo are a misdirected effort. Even if you do empty your pockets of $10 for 334 legitimate typos, you're really not getting much in return. Your generosity with this bounty is surely appreciated, but I can't see how this type of bounty can be effective as those for featured articles can be. --Pharos 00:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Stacking bounties[edit]

It occurs to me that stacking bounties, one bounty being sponsored by many small pledges, could be a valuable fundraising tool. If we accumulated a fair amount on one bounty, that would also make it considerably more likely that it would be claimed. Matt's African country bounty seems to me like a viable option for this. Any thoughts on this? --Pharos 03:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A good idea. I'd suggest that any stacked bounties be merged into one notice, perhaps like this: — Matt Crypto 09:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


US$90 (stacked bounty: UK£10 + US$25 + US$40)
Offered by
Fred Bloggs, John Q. Public and Tommy Atkins
The US$25 and US$40 bounties expire on 1 May 2006; £10 expires on 1 January 2006.
I hope someone can get this vital topic featured. Fred Bloggs 10:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I've just noticed that Wikipedia:Bounty board#Inflation carries a joint bounty. — Matt Crypto 09:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Just a note that I've removed my own bounty on Ahnenerbe, since it seems that if it does ever become Featured, it will be through my own obsessive compulsion with the article ;) I will likely place the same bounty on the related article Wewelsburg instead. I'm also still hoping to come back and work on Kent State a bit more when I'm done with Ahnenerbe (probably get a peer review tomorrow). --Sherurcij 20:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

First Finished Bounty?[edit]

Everyday items

Amount $10.00 USD per article, maximum two (for now). Bounty offerer


Expiration December 1, 2006 Notes Available for any of the following articles on everyday items, or possibly for others if I'm asked first: ... shoe polish

And we now have Main Page trophy Shoe polish appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 15, 2005.

So this one is complete, no? Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Was not the bounty for two items, not just one article? --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't look like it, looks like he's saying he'll only pay out for a maximum of two articles (ie: Is only putting up $20 cash, so don't stake him for 500 articles). Left a note on his talkpage Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 08:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Paying contributors[edit]

The German version of the bounty system allows contributors to be paid for their contributions. We should provide an opportunity for the same. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-29 06:26

Hell no. If you want to hire someone to write an article for you, feel free, but don't use Wikipedia resources to set it up. --Carnildo 08:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I am going to take a different stance and say, sure, I think the editor could be paid for his work. --Zach (Smack Back) 22:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Z, I don't think Carnildo is objecting to the paying so much as the use of Wikipedia pages to "set it up". --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...because I remembered an offer that I tried to fulfill on the EN-wiki mailing list (failed). But, I agree that the payment details should be handled via email between the offer and the hunter. --Zach (Smack Back) 01:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Er, hell yes. There's absolutely no reason why Wikipedia resources shouldn't be used to improve Wikipedia. — Matt Crypto 12:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Ya dudes, this is totally cool with me, and will definitely get things done faster than donations to Wikimedia Foundation, and that'll get more donations in the long run because people will be impressed at the good article they found that someone was paid to write, and want to support the creation and hosting and everything else of similar articles, and maybe they'll even want to join the project. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 20:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am dubious about even donating for particular articles or edting actions, but if paying individual editors for articles is supported by this page, or by any page on wikipedia (including in userspace) and I becoeme aware of it, i will put that page up for deletion at WP:MfD. Paying individual editors is simply not acceptable IMO. DES (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Other items[edit]

I was wondering if, later on, other images can be exchanged for FA's, like they do over at DE? Items can include CD's, a latte, photos being sent to the Commons taken by the person who offered the bounty, etc. BTW, great scheme, been waiting for this for a while. --Zach (Smack Back) 11:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not following you here- what do you mean by changing images for FA? --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Ooops. I forgot "ex" in "exchange." But, instead of giving cash for writing FA's, could other items be exchanged? --Zach (Smack Back) 02:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Mm. I don't see why not, but some of those are not particularly easy, and rather subjective- how would you improve an image to FP-status, or put up a bounty for one? That sort of thing. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, one of many things, an example: write an FA on a musical style, act, genre or "Music of CountyX" and you get a CD of your choice, and the one who offers the bounty pays for it (they work out terms off-site). Or, they can do this: create an FA about X subject and I will take photos of "whatever" and put them on the Commons. Zach (Smack Back) 03:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I see what you are getting at- you are suggesting we allow non-monetary methods of payment, such as payment in kind or service. I see no problem as long as the terms are satisfactory to both parties and verifiable, but I suggest we ask the other people interested in this to weigh in, just to be sure. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Si amigo. --Zach (Smack Back) 04:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

As the Saddle Creek Corporation article appears to be destubbed, it is eligible for the half-bounty (US$15 out of US$30), to be paid September 3rd 2006. The full-bounty (for FA status) still stands, and if the article reaches FA status, the full amount will be donated immediately. Kalo 13:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I thought it'd be appreciated if I sorted the current bounties by deadline:

April 2006
April 2006
  • An African country
1 May 2006
October 24 2006
October 24 2006
October 24 2006
October 24 2006
October 24 2006
October 24 2006
October 24 2006
October 24 2006
October 24 2006
October 24 2006
October 24 2006
  • Forgotten biographies
October 29 2006
November 2006
  • Complexity classes
December 1 2006
  • Everyday items
December 1 2006
  • DG's inflation bounty
December 31 2006
January 1, 2007
  • Silence's inflation bounty
December 1 2055

--maru (talk) Contribs 00:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Time's up[edit]

Time's up on my bounty for articles with free images. Where should I move it to? --Carnildo 08:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It was moved to Claimed bounties and there noted as paid 2 January 2006.

Time's up on George W. Bush. Ought it be moved to Expired bounties? -- 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not a FA, so I guess so. --maru (talk) contribs 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
First expired bounty -- 04:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to the editors of Médecins Sans Frontières[edit]

Looks like it's the first specific bounty to be claimed! Woohoo! --Rampart 00:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales[edit]

Why is it void if Wales edits it even once? --maru (talk) contribs 23:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the bounty on Jimbo Wales. I'll let the bounty-holder answer that one. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 03:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hee hee. I like your phrasing. --maru (talk) contribs 04:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Now Hiring created[edit]

I've created Wikipedia:Now Hiring as a bounty board for individual editors. I know this has been discussed here a lot, so I thought some of you might be interested. Especially DES, who wants to put it up on MfD, in case you missed that. : ) cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Worsening existing problems[edit]

I see there were concerns about this page when it was created, but am I the only person who sees this as worsening the existing problem that led to the creation of WP:BIAS? It's all in good fun to the people involved here I'm sure, but this page seems like a huge mistake to me... Moulder 23:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- Миборовский 07:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
With a few exceptions (e.g., Palpatine), I actually see this as having the opposite effect. But only time will really tell. Jun-Dai 08:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Saddle Creek Corporation[edit]

On September 3rd 2006, the bounty for Saddle Creek Corporation will expire. However, if it is at that time deemed to be a non-stubbed article, half the bounty (US$15) will still be paid. As the article stands now, I believe it to not be a stub. Kalo 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The half-bounty (US$15) will be paid by September 10th, 2006. Kalo 15:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Expired items[edit]

Should I delete the expired entries, or should they be moved somewhere? Also, what about entries that have no expiration mentioned? Should these be deleted on the assumption they have expired? (such as one item created in 2005!). Thanks, --Rebroad 09:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Move the expired entries to the expired section.--Wizardman 23:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How does this work?[edit]

I've got an article I'd like to see improved, and the money to donate. How does this work? I can't find anything about how to become a Bounty Keeper. Where do I sign up? Jedwards05 01:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just add your request to the list. Most requests use the same layout, but there's no requirement to. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bounty template[edit]

I made a few changes to {{bounty}}, adding an "expires" bit and allowing "featured status" to be changed (in case someone wants to make an offer for WP:GA status, or something else entirely). I also created Category:Pages on the Bounty board for this template. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

UBX created[edit]

Here's a userbox for bounty hunters. It doesn't categorize the userpage. Just put {{subst:User:Fleetflame/Bounty}} on your userpage. Enjoy! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

$ This user is a Bounty Hunter.


"This offer has expired" crosses[edit]

I have placed crosses with a bold message on expired offers. PLEASE tell me if you construe this as vandalism. --Ipatrol (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia[edit]

$ 500,- for anyone who can make a nice artwork of Pier Gerlofs Donia and upload it to wikipedia. Free of copyrights or at least free to use. Thanks in advance! (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing[edit]

Of interest, including's Jimbo promise to ban anybody editing for $... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to archive?[edit]

Time to archive the expired/fulfilled requests? GoingBatty (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How much success[edit]

How much success has this efforts garnered in term of number of GA/FAs and money donated to the WMF?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Per here it appears as though 8 bounties have been claimed with a total donation of $215 (USD). Achowat (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks it looks like 4 where for specific articles. 2 where for tools and 2 where for any of a number of articles. And this has been over many years... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
IMO this is a waste of time, and worse our guidelines make special exemptions for them. I've raised this on the current RFC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COI#Statement_by_John_Vandenberg. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


I just stumbled on to this page and I doubt many Editors know it exists. It seems like an idea that was floated in the mid-2000s and just continued on despite the lack of interest. Time to mark it inactive? Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I would advocate sending it to Afd. Jusdafax 23:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The AFD result will be "keep" or "keep and mark as historical". --Carnildo (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


I just bumped into this. I think it has great potential.
  • I would advocate that the monies recipient should be the decision of the individual editor, a charity or good cause. Alternatively a company may wish to pay the bounty to a charity assisting the underpriviledged in their locale, or similar. This would be in addition to the Foundation option. Just my 2p Irondome (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express[edit]

The user Suburban_Express was criticized and blocked because some user(s) felt that it seemed to be shared username. Pursuant to the block, our posts to the reward board and bounty board were deleted, presumably because the username was blocked. I have registered a new username that is specific to an individual and is therefore compliant with wikipedia rules, and re-posted our entries on the two boards. Suburban Express President (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)