Wikipedia:Do not expect rewards for your editing

An example of someone doing a good deed with no expectation of reward

Wikipedia content is contributed with an irreversible free license and without payment to the editors, researchers and administrators. These two requirements seem necessary for a Wiki encyclopedia project to survive and thrive. If editors could "take back" their articles upon leaving then we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia. If the project had to pay editors and researchers, it would not be financially feasible. Some people, however, still expect other indirect rewards. This may come from their evil/egoistic personality, but it may also come from simple unawareness. This page exists to clear up any misconceptions regarding rewards for editing.

Expectations for rewards

• "I wrote that many really good articles, could I now post one more article about my not yet notable open source project?"
• "I have devoted that much attention to community, could I now require a little bit more attention for myself?"
• "Can I get some official higher status for the sake of emotional satisfaction?"
• "Could I get from Wikipedia a kind of recommendation that may help for me to find a job?"
• "Could you promote my new non-profit initiative or band or self-published book?"
• "Could you increase the search rank of your online sources that feed you?"
• "Could I get my friend unbanned? I wrote so many articles and I want my friend unbanned!"

In all these cases, the answer is a clear "no". Wikipedia does not give any reward other than the presence of the great encyclopedia on the web. It is your choice to contribute a little, to contribute a lot, to not contribute, or to contribute short-lived vandalism. There will be no payment in any of these cases. Please know this, especially before starting a hundred-article project. Otherwise you may end up in a deep and unexpected conflict against the community.

Why rewards are not possible

Reasons why personal rewards are not possible are deeper than just lack of resources and have roots in the evaluation of one's contributions. It is not just difficult, but impossible, by design, to know which editors are "better" than others. Edit counts or new article counts are not good indicators because they tell nothing about the quality of one's work. And a rating system, if one was implemented, would be sensitive to real-world social networks; editors who know each other in real life are more likely to give good certifications to each other. In addition, various votes would be sensitive to sock puppetry.

Also, having something that is only available to the "best elite contributors" would attract users who are experts in marketing themselves as "the best experts". The ability to market one's own significance to the project is a skill that may or may not correlate with the actual value of contributions; furthermore, this skill includes attempting to show (convincingly, if well done) that the "competitors" (other users) are inferior, as their contributions are not as good. Are you sure you want this hierarchical structure, where you may or may not be a "winner"?

Projects that have tried to have both free and paid contributors have observed fiery conflicts between these two groups, with the elite groups acting rude and arrogant while the non-elite groups ask why they should work for free. It seems that while both paid and voluntary projects are possible, a mixed approach is not viable. Adding the ability to self-advertise or to obtain an official recommendation that not everyone can get will bring similar problems. Also, these "indirect rewards" may not be as valuable as they initially appear. A good startup needs no premature Wikipedia article about it to progress. Recommendations from Wikipedia, at the end of the day, may not help you in looking for a job. And supported feelings of elitism are just bad for your character.

Right reason to contribute

God is so independent that he does not need anything from the world he is building

There are a lot of good reasons to contribute to Wikipedia. Many contribute simply because they think the world becomes a better place with many people acting like them, sharing their knowledge and building a better encyclopedia. Following some philosophers, this motivation, if the only remaining, makes you similar to God. Even the expectation of simple rewards like emotional satisfaction goes against the purpose of the site.

Editing Wikipedia (probably) won't feel like this

Of course, this does not mean that your contribution to Wikipedia will be plain "suffering on the cross". You will almost definitely meet some interesting people, earn respect, and feel satisfied with your new article. Just do not put any "minimal requirements" on reward, do not expect it to be proportional to your efforts, and most importantly, do not tie the possible benefits with the value of your contribution and your personality.

Dealing with selfish requirements

Do not meet requirements and proposals for extra reward with personal attacks about narcissism and urgent proposals to go away, even if you believe the former to be true. Bringing the discussion to a personal level ("What is your motivation? Your motivation is the root of all evil!") is not a good method of argumentation. If the editor has already contributed some good content for free and under a Free license then they are already halfway there. It is fully possible that such a contributor will be capable of understanding the several remaining issues. Hence, like with everything in Wikipedia, it's better to assume good faith and try to explain what's wrong, perhaps by linking to this essay.

See also

• Categorical imperative
• Wikipedia:Expect no thanks
• Wikipedia:Bounty board