Wikipedia talk:Bounty board

message: 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)
thread_title:  horrible, horrible idea. 

message: Interesting idea. I'll think about it. Who decides when to award bounty? --Fred Bauder 18:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bounty Keeper (who posted the bounty), i.e., the person whose money it is. – Quadell (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bounty awarding 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Forgotten biographies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Broadening 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hey- I just noticed something amusing during my research on Lisp machines; MIT's online archives of their research papers http://www.dspace.org/ is named DSpace!  Wonder if that's a coincidence? :)  --Maru  (talk) Contribs 04:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some troublesome ones 

message: ;Amount: $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: Creidieki
;Expiration: December 1 2006
;Notes: 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 http://www.dspace.org/ is named DSpace!  Wonder if that's a coincidence? :)  --Maru  (talk) Contribs 04:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complexity classes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broke article into sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How to pay foundation-pay bounties 

message: :"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)
replies: text: Besides normal Watchlist reversions and rollbacks?  --Maru  (talk) Contribs 04:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Copyediting bounties 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stacking bounties 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ahnenerbe 

message: Everyday items
Amount
$10.00 USD per article, maximum two (for now).
Bounty offerer
    Creidieki
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)
replies: text: Hmm. Was not the bounty for two items, not just one article? --Maru  (talk) Contribs 02:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  First Finished Bounty? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Paying contributors 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm not following you here- what do you mean by changing images for FA? --Maru  (talk) Contribs 02:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Si amigo. --Zach (Smack Back) 04:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other items 

message: I thought it'd be appreciated if I sorted the current bounties by deadline:
*Dawson's Field hijackings   
:April 2006
*Diggers (True Levellers)   
:April 2006
*An African country   
;1 May 2006
*History of Cincinnati, Ohio   
:October 24 2006
*Iran-Contra Affair   
:October 24 2006
*Kent State Massacre   
:October 24 2006
*Médecins Sans Frontières   
:October 24 2006
*Military-industrial complex   
:October 24 2006
*Minneapolis Teamsters Strike of 1934   
:October 24 2006
*Mohammed Mossadegh   
:October 24 2006
*Nonviolent resistance   
:October 24 2006
*Religious Society of Friends   
:October 24 2006
*Water resources   
:October 24 2006
*Akbar   
:October 24 2006
*Forgotten biographies   
:October 29 2006
*Bank of Credit and Commerce International   
:November 2006
*Complexity classes   
:December 1 2006
*Everyday items   
:December 1 2006
* DG's inflation bounty    
:December 31 2006
*Velvet Elvis   
:January 1, 2007
* Silence's inflation bounty    
:December 1 2055
--maru  (talk) Contribs 00:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadlines 

message: Time's up on my bounty for articles with free images.  Where should I move it to? --Carnildo 08:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? --209.6.189.247 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's not a FA, so I guess so. --maru   (talk)  contribs 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First expired bounty --209.6.189.247 04:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time's up

message: Looks like it's the first specific bounty to be claimed! Woohoo! --Rampart 00:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats to the editors of [[Médecins Sans Frontières]] 

message: Why is it void if Wales edits it even once? --maru  (talk) contribs 23:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hee hee. I like your phrasing. --maru  (talk) contribs 04:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Wales 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Now Hiring created 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. -- Миборовский 07:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Worsening existing problems 

message: 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)
replies: text: The half-bounty (US$15) will be paid by September 10th, 2006. Kalo 15:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddle Creek Corporation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Move the expired entries to the expired section.--Wizardman 23:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expired items 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How does this work? 

message: I made a few changes to , 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)
thread_title:  Bounty template 

message: Here's a userbox for bounty hunters.  It doesn't categorize the userpage.  Just put  on your userpage.  Enjoy!  Fléêťflämẽ  U-T-C  02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UBX created 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "This offer has expired" crosses 

message: $ 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! 193.172.170.26 (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pier Gerlofs Donia]] 

message: Of interest, including's Jimbo promise to ban anybody editing for $... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing]] 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: How much success

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

message: :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)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suburban Express 

message: I oppose the deletion of this page. I think it would be useful, and I would like to offer a bounty. Benjamin (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose