- 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 debate was keep Greeves ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reward board
This page offers people with a conflict-of-interest a way to disrupt Wikipedia without violating policy. Its justification that "well, this happens already anyway," is a red herring. Furthermore, it is also extremely prone to abuse, considering the fact that people could put up false rewards, not pay, falsely claim to have paid, and Wikipedia isn't going to get involved in enforcing payment. Aside from this, the current rewards that have been put up aren't useful, because they aren't substantial -- most of them appear to be either jokes, "I'll tell you my name," or the very low reward of "if you edit this article, I'll edit your article." Finally, it detracts from the bounty board. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep many of the issues addressed here have been addressed at the talk page before, or situations where the WMF has no control whatsoever. Plus, not all rewards to be given have to be in a cash form. The German Wikipedia version also have material rewards, such as either edited articles, products, food, drinks, etc. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep with cavaet. The pages rewards should solely be article related (if someone wants an FA, they offer pics, and FA.... in return) - the page promotes better content so is a plus, but there's privacy/COI concerns when money is offered. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and let people use whatever rewards they want. In the end, it will be to the benefit of the encyclopedia. WP:LF and all that. Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 04:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Placing restrictions on the type of reward that can be offered may be worth considering, but the board seems to be promising as a means of soliciting improvement to a specific article or topic area. Keep. Black Falcon ( Talk) 04:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I won't say it doesn't bug me, and I wouldn't object to some sort of restriction on the rewards, but it's for the greater good, as it were. -- jonny- m t 10:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Doesn't seem to be causing any problems. -- Carnildo ( talk) 06:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No substantial problems arising from the page that I'm aware of. Preemptive deletion is inappropriate unless there is an outstanding reason. — Κaiba 13:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep with no caveat, per the Prohibition; removing the Wikipedia reward board will simply cause other reward boards to pop up, either inside or outside Wikipedia. No need to legislate upon a (dare I say it) harmless concept.-- WaltCip ( talk) 14:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Rewards are merely a tool. If used to encourage higher quality, they are a benefit to Wikipedia. When a serious reward covering WP:FURRY was offered, we ended up with four good articles. It's not the only means to encourage quality contributions, or even the best, but I think it helps. GreenReaper ( talk) 20:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep While it could become a problem, its not one yet. MBisanz talk 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I created this thing and it's fine. I came across Flash Media Server today and noticed it's written like an advertisement. I don't see anyone offering money for a favorable article on FMS here. This only makes corruption more visible; any malicious user with half a brain would not post their violating proposal on this board. If one is motivated by money, there is no reason that shouldn't be willingly employed by other Wikipedians to improve the encyclopedia. cooki e caper ( talk / contribs) 11:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, the risk of not being paid is something editors may or may not choose to take at their own prerogative. The board may have some humourous entries, but it is also a source of good articles for Wikipedia. I don't seen anything to be gained in deleting it. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- WAT question: #22 - (5 points) Who is more likely to create vandalism:
- A. An editor with 200 mainspace edits being offered money to promote an article to FA status...
- B. A teenager who wants to "look cool" to his friends...
- or C. Jimbo Wales.
- D: All of the above, assuming that Jimbo has access to a Fountain of Youth (there's a reason he lives in Florida). GreenReaper ( talk) 19:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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.