Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reward board (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was KEPT per the explanation below. Since any close was going to be controversial, I'm going to explain my reasoning in detail, in the hopes that I am not tarred and feathered.

Right then. Unlike Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bounty board (2nd nomination), which seemed to have a rather clear consensus, opinion over this page is rather evenly divided.

Those in favor of marking this as historical present two main arguments. The first is best summed up by Quadell's "It is not particularly useful, and is not effectively being used." - which is to say that people see it as a largely abandoned process. The second argument, which was voiced by more people and with more passion, is that this board encourages violations of Wikipedia's prohibition against either paid editing or conflict of interest editing. The person that nominated this page for deletion specifically mentioned the "Suburban Express" item. I have to believe that the "Suburban Express" item played a factor in a number of other people's decisions to vote to mark this as historical. While I don't give much weight at all to the first argument, the second one needs consideration.

On the other side, the argument for keeping this page as open is that, the "Suburban Express" item aside, the items posted here aren't problematic. There are several different arguments that reach that point in several different ways, but the most persuasive of those, made by BDD, Me_and, and Jeremy112233, goes straight to the heart of it by pointing out a majority of the posts on the board aren't COI issues. If all you're asking is for someone to bring an article you're interested in up to a higher level of quality, that's not a COI issue. The "Suburban Express" post requested a whitewashing, which is a COI issue, but is different from what every other post on that board has been.

Weighing the two arguments, I find the latter more persuasive, as it is backed by stronger evidence. Because those that view the page as a COI issue could not point to any incident other than the "Suburban Express" as being problematic, the argument simply doesn't hold up. Does the Reward Board need a stronger set of guidelines to prevent another "Suburban Express" post? Possibly. Is the "Suburban Express" representative of what happens on the board? No.

Finally, I'll note (to head off the people that are going to be upset with this close) that even if I simply counted up the comments that had any substance behind them (discounting ones that made no arguments), this is still split closely enough that it could be a "no consensus" close, and "no consensus" closes default to the status quo.

Please feel free to reach out to me if you would like further clarification about this close. So long as you keep it civil, I will be happy to defend it to you. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reward board (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bounty board (2nd nomination). This article-improvement tactic has also outlived its usefulness, and now seems to be misunderstood. Miniapolis 15:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mark as closed down. In my opinion this is worse than the Bounty Board as it solicits to find editors to work for a fee rather than to earn a donation to the WMF. It doesn't make any sense for the community to ban Wiki-PR while at the same time appearing to encourage paid editing by having somewhere to post adverts. It has been used more than the Bounty Board, but is this really something that we want to encourage? Any benefit that we've gained from this over the last 5 years since the previous MFD is outweighed by the potential negatives. SmartSE (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed Down tag per Smartse - We're basically telling everyone Paid editing's forbidden yet we're telling them it's fine.... With the WikiPR business going on I assumed Paid editing was forbidden. "Schoolboy Error" Apologies! Davey2010T 15:42 17:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep I don't see any good reason why this should be deleted in the nomination, just OTHERSTUFF. KonveyorBelt 15:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Down - I was involved with getting a reward completed before but overall, I don't think this has any true benefits for the site. Makes it give out the idea that "Get an article/list to X, receive a shiny star on your talk page" is all one can do on the site. GamerPro64 16:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not against some kind of fundamental wiki-law. I don't care whether one editor pays another; what matters is whether the edits are good or bad. I'm slightly surprised by the suggestion that "Paid editing's forbidden"; if somebody could link to whatever policy says that, I'd be grateful. The COI guideline doesn't say it. bobrayner (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Davey2010T 17:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinct difference between something being permissible and us encouraging it. SmartSE (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's permissible, why delete? Just so WMF propaganda, which is flatly false, strictly speaking, can be thought of as true? That is good propaganda by the way. It's the best Wikimedia propaganda I've ever seen. And I was at Wikimania 2012 so I got to meet some of those folks too. So that's cool and it's an example of community money being well spent, in my opinion (if you're into propaganda). The shitty thing is that the WMF made it so hard to find. This is a knock-off version with only a fraction of the hits as the orginal. Even when it's a good thing, it's not "good good", you know what I mean? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that made no sense whatsoever. SmartSE (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that might clarify things. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination says that the Reward Board has "outlived its usefulness". Really? Are you sure? Those very nice starter articles were created just this month, thanks to the Reward Board. It's highly useful. -- I'm not that crazy (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark Historical For the same reasons as the bounty board. I see no reason to reject this good faith nomination on procedural grounds. That's being dense on purpose, when the reason for this nomination is clear from the context. Gigs (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Process is not determined by "context". KonveyorBelt 18:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's nominating it for the same reasons as the other MfD, he shouldn't have to spell it out all over again for the sake of process. I think there's plenty of fine reasons that someone might want to keep this page alive. Surely one could articulate one of those instead of a procedural objection. Gigs (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and mark as historical or closed or whatever's appropriate. Here's why. First of all, if you've been paying attention, there's been a slow-burning civil war on the Wikipedia over the question of how, exactly, to handle the commodification of Wikipedia articles, and the larger issue of where an entity like the Wikipedia fits into our market-based economic system and so on, and this board fits into that larger picture as I'll explain below. This is pretty much a political issue, partly because our rules are really designed for a more or less collegial/volunteer paradigm and not to handle a commodified Wikipedia and attacks from outside for-profit enterprises and so on. So pointing to specific rules is probably going to be less helpful than usual. Instead, let's think of it more like a business case and think about the cost/benefit ratio:
  • The benefit of the board is pretty small:
    • The gross amount of material generated is pretty small. The board is just not all that active.
    • But the net activity is probably much smaller -- quite possibly negligible -- because, absent the presence of this board, most editors will probably be like "I'll just edit something else" rather than "I'll just play golf today". (If there was much net gain -- editors were forgoing golf or whatever because they need the fifty bucks -- the question of "to what extent does the Wikipedia want to be a sweatshop" would them arise.)
    • And it's questionable whether the material created is really better than other material that might be created by other incentives, such as "I'm interested and/or knowledgeable in topic X" or "I see a need for expanding our coverage of topic X" or "I'll look at the backlog pages" and so on.
  • The cost of the board is much more than the small benefit:
    • The existence of the board is not helpful for us in figuring out the larger (and very important!) question of how to handle paid advocacy editing generally, because in discussions of the matter, the existence of this board then raises the question "Well, but what about the Reward Board?" For some people it's a source of genuine confusion, for others a useful red herring to obfuscate the issue or score a point; in both cases an unhelpful distraction from the heart of the matter.
    • Aside from that, there are other costs. It's not useful to when reporters writing articles can point to the existence of this board. (If it was a key part of the Wikipedia it would be useful, because then it'd be an accurate example of where we are coming from; but it's not, and it's not.) According to one commenter above, the existence of this board renders false some of the WMF's outreach material; if that's true, that's not a good thing. And just the general sketchy vibe given out by the board is potentially confusing to new editors and, at this point is our history, just overall not helpful to the Wikipedia project.
    • Again, all this wouldn't matter that much if the benefit was more than miniscule. But it is miniscule.
Of course, the ability to raise the existence of the board to raised as an obfuscating side issue and so forth is a positive benefit to several editors. So we're going to have some "keep" votes, for that as well other reasons. At the end of the day it's a political question, really. It's up to the person closing this discussion to consider strength of argument and the overall best interests of the Wikipedia, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close it down. It appears to legitimize even personal cash payments for specific article writing tasks. The strongest defense is that it is barely used. It would be better if there were documented policy explicitly banning this sort of thing, as we shouldn't be using MfD to make these pseudo-policy decisions, but I sense that organised paid editing is strongly disapproved of by the majority of the community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My talk-page post was made after I opened the MfD. Please don't try to discredit those who disagree with you. Miniapolis 13:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That talkpage post illumintates your motives; why do you feel the timestamps matter? One possible explanation is that you started out here with a legitimate motive for deleting the reward board, then later switched to petty vengefulness when discussing the MfD on your talkpage, but I don't think that's a good explanation. bobrayner (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ever hear of WP:AGF? I'm not the one who's petty here, and your attempts to derail the discussion say more about you than they do about me. I, for one, am waiting for consensus (or the lack of same). Miniapolis 14:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see what makes it a problem. If it is not used, marking it historical could be an option, but I am again not sure what would prevent anyone from making it more active again... however, a merger with WP:BOUNTY may be a good idea, and would get my support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close it down. Herostratus nailed when he wrote "The existence of the board is not helpful for us in figuring out the larger (and very important!) question of how to handle paid advocacy editing generally, because in discussions of the matter, the existence of this board then raises the question 'Well, but what about the Reward Board?' For some people it's a source of genuine confusion, for others a useful red herring to obfuscate the issue or score a point; in both cases an unhelpful distraction from the heart of the matter." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because at least it's open, transparent, and the work can be monitored by volunteers. This deletion request is a distraction from the real problem, which is how to identify the POV advocates under the radar. Tony (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No "distraction"; one of the posters is making what seems to be an attempt to game the system. Until WP has a policy on paid editing which is consistent with WP:NPOV, all we can do is put out fires. Biosthmors has a COI in this discussion, since they have accepted SE's offer. Miniapolis 15:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Miniapolis, what do you know of my emails and plans? I am going to propose that I only post on the talk page so I reject this accusation. And this, again, only proves my point that the whole impulse here is remarkably stupid. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep was actually surprised this existed. I can cite Tony 1 immediately above as reflecting my sentiment; actions taken here are well disclosed, not under the radar. The transparency is a good thing IMO. Also, every time I bring up my watchlist I see the three open proposals to change policy for something closely related to this discussion. This seems like an end around attempt to litigate something out of existence for which the overall consensus for the bigger issue is in doubt and being currently debated. Boogerpatrol (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark historical/Delete This is indeed even worse than the bounty board. It institutionalizes something which we have found acutely dangerous to WP,. We haven't prohibited paid editing, but the main reason is that we are unable to do so effectively. It has been a disgrace to include it in the project, and sends a signal contradictory to what we are trying to do. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The things I see in the reward board aren't encouraging COI. They're "please write an article about x" or "please get articles about y up to a certain standard". I don't see any requests that encourage breaching NPOV (and that's fundamentally why we have the COI policies), only requests that encourage increasing Wikipedia's coverage of certain topics. If I see no evidence of this page doing any harm. —me_and 15:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close down or mark historical, it is distracting from the important discussions regarding paid editing. Neutron (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close down a page that has been around for over seven and a half years because it's distracting from some discussions started a few weeks ago? Um... --BDD (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, from the time the reward board was created, its primary influence on the project has been to spark and influence discussions about paid editing. – SJ +
  • Keep: paid editing is permitted and there doesn't appear to be a consensus to change that. This page is a highly visible place for such activity, where it can receive the extra scrutiny it deserves. Closing this would send the message "we're okay with paid editing, but don't make the arrangements for it on our wiki." —rybec 22:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark historical I have no problems with paid advertising (as long as it follows Wikipdeia guidelines), but a look thru the history of this page shows this idea never really caught on. And deleting it would remove evidence explaining it didn't work. -- llywrch (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close down or Mark historical. It is not particularly useful, and is not effectively being used. – Quadell (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this one is active, so I can't use the same argument I made at the bounty board. Agree with unease about an officially sanctioned page with cash incentives. However I have been involved in reviving the [Wikipedia:The Core Contest|Core Contest]], which has had voucher prizes for specific improvements to core material of wikipedia. My personal view is that a well-defined contest such as the Core Contest minimises chances of gaming a particular POV, and that maybe this Rewards Board could be modified a similar way by adding the following criteria:
Eliminate cash rewards.
The ability of an editor to raise concerns about any particular entry and raise it for discussion on the talk page. Thus, if an entry was deemed by consensus to run contra to the aims of a NPOV encyclopedia then it would be removed.
And the board serve as a link to other contests etc.
If these two caveats were added, I'd vote keep. If folks are unhappy with that and want to open up discussion on the vailidity of the Core Contest, then that is something else worth discussing too I guess.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only regular activity on this board is barnstar challenges. Conversely, most barnstar challenges happen on WikiProject pages and not here. We could have a better-named place to list those :-) Stats from the archive suggest only 5% of the completed tasks were 'rewards' that couldn't be posted elsewhere (as a bounty or barnstar contest or backlog drive). – SJ + 17:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should add that I wouldn't miss the board either - barnstars are supposed to be spontaneous.....posting thm on rewards boards strikes me as contrived..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Caring about the issue in this way seems as if one is grasping at straws... Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close down and mark historical. As Radiant says: replace with a brief history explaining how this worked and didn't work, and ways in which it was gameable and generated mixed responses.
I like Herostratus's analysis; the gross benefit here is small, the net benefit is tiny. This board is a failed experiment: once you leave out barnstars (which are handed out in hundreds of places, not only here), only a few articles a year are changed thanks to either the bounty or reward boards. Their main impact on the project is in discussions about whether to allow paid editing.
To Casliber: A page listing all of the open contests and challenges would be lovely. Including both group contests and barnstar challenges. Contests get attention, are fun, and have encouraged good work and good energy. The WikiCup, the Core Contest, WLM... and any other group events that are done together as a community, and publicly judged. – SJ + 16:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes... What, exactly, is the harm in keeping it SJ? (COI disclosure I am an evil recent convert to the depths of hell, but my soul is still pure). Trying to shut this down, to me, is the result of an illogical and activist anti-paid-editing-so-let's-close-a-back-door-while-no-one-is-watching-because-we-don't-like-the-logic-other-Wikipedians-are-using-at-the-paid-editing-RfC's (which do represent a real consensus) kind of thing to do, IMO. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Herostratus's argument is valid. Specific harm: the reward you almost vied for. The poster is in the middle of a PR crisis, losing an edit war over their WP article (already being edited by some established editors). They want to recruit existing editor to continue their struggle, edit their article, and make the article "more neutral" -- a result they would judge, presupposing it is not currently neutral. Alas, this board wasn't set up to catch & revert such games. The harm is that they convinced an editor of pure soul that this task made sense. – SJ + 01:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced, at the moment, that that's the most ridiculous and harmful thing I've ever heard said on this website. The problem is that there's nothing wrong with paid editing, so we shouldn't pretend like there is. (Jimbo uses the term paid advocacy editing. Meanwhile, that concept should be developed.) I've been a volunteer for years. But when the WP:WMF flew me to Milan and paid for my hostel stay, did that also corrupt my pure soul? Or is WMF money pure, despite Sue's statement? We all know it's a lie that "all of the articles on the website are written by volunteers". SJ, it was very nice to meet you in Milan and thanks for all you do for the website, but please stop trying to protect your vision of the brand, which is flatly false. Someone needs to speak truth to power instead of the WMF (in my mind at least) effectively buying off people on this wiki (the best volunteers) and in chapters with money, perks, and lines on their resume. If you're consistent, might you also lobby to shut down the m:IEG program as well? Or has that been your position all along? I was considering asking why they don't pay more over there to help people take the projects more seriously. But given the low-ball figures, just like the ones we pay our engineers, maybe we're not trying to attract real talent, just like our approach to editing in general. I think we've been remarkably lucky to get Sue, but I don't think she's paid enough, from what I've heard. I wonder how m:Talk:Executive Director Transition Team is going. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is just another kind of forum shopping to deal with a much larger issue. Resolve the issue with paid editing elsewhere first and then once that has been settled come back to this specific page and deal with the issues involved. I don't even think it should be marked as historical as it still seems to be actively being used. If you want to challenge the notion expressed on this page (and I think it is better to see this stuff happening within Wikipedia than through an external website), make it a general community RfC and not take it out on a particular content page like this. Just table the discussion on this issue for now as I'm sure it will be nominated again and again until those larger issues are resolved. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean, like that stupidity? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Robert - I agree that MfD isn't quite the right forum for this - the page should at most be archived, not deleted. But it's not quite forum shopping; just a[nother] editor coming across the reward board and thinking "H'm, this doesn't seem like a good idea." Separate from the more complex issue of paid editing. – SJ + 01:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you'll examine this thread with open eyes, logic, and common sense, you'll see the fundamental flaw of why I think there is forum shopping going on here. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, there is definitely some canvassing going on with this and many other related pages at the moment. To give a short example, see also Wikipedia talk:Paid editing policy proposal#Related discussions: Bounty Board and Reward Board MfDs, which I also give as proof that this is something which is related to the whole paid editing controversy. It goes well beyond simply "this isn't a good idea". With the sheer number of active proposals being made on this topic, forum shopping is most definitely a reasonable charge as well even if it is getting widespread attention now. At the very least it is no longer confined to Jimbo's talk page (something I rarely if ever pay attention to but where the controversy seemed to start). --Robert Horning (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Most postings are benign and simply request help in a project too large or complex for one editors to undertake due to time or other commitments. The page can also help new or bored editors to areas of the encyclopaedia they might not normally work on. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close down by marking as historical and moving to Wikipedia:Historical archive (since it was part of Wikipedia's history). Project pages are for information or discussion about Wikipedia. WP:COI reads "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The page/project needs to be closed down because it creates a process where advancing outside interests (receipt and transmission of a reward/payment external to Wikipedia) is more important than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. As of 2013, the initial April 2006‎ article-improvement tactic has been made secondary to advancing outside interests. Project space should not be used to encourage actions outside of Wikipedia that predominate over producing a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Paid editing as opposed to paid advocacy, is not prohibited and IMO should not be discouraged, indeed if anythign it should be encouraged in proper cases. This board appears to generally encourage proper cases. it is transparent, and with perhaps one or two exceptions, does not seem to encourage COI editing at all. I agree with Robert Horning above that this was an ill-timed nomination. I also agree with soem others that the nomination itself was poorly phrased, but that is a detail, the arguments for deletion or closure have been made by others. If currently ongoing discussions chan ge the policy on paid editing or paid dvocay, this discussion might be worth revisiting in the light of such changed policy. If not, the rules for this board shoulkd probably be tweaked to make sure it isn't used for paid advocacy, nor seem to be a precedent citable in favor of paid advocacy. But that is a matter of editing and perhaps of obtaining consensus on the talk page or via an RfC. Also, while it has been done before, I think tryign to set policy by using an MfD to delete or close a process page is not the ideal way to proceed -- an RfC would be a better method. DES (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just do not see any problems with it. Audriusa (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The MFD guideline says, "Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days". We're going on 12 days now. Time for someone to shit or get off the pot. - 2001:558:1400:10:E1C7:8438:5E48:3232 (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.