We started off with a weekly $25 and monthly $50 "editor of the ..." contest, which is way more than organic posting rewards could provide consistently. That didn't work out for a combination of reasons, but in the end it just wasn't enough to pay enough people. And spreading the few rewards it gets would be incredibly difficult to do fairly, as contribution quality varies wildly but is also subjective to a certain degree.
There's no money to be made with a wiki. It'll either be a project embraced and maintained by a dedicated community, or not reach its full potential.
I feel like there should be curation-methods to reward contributions in one way or another and at the same time giving the curators/moderators part of the rewards. If I could understand it more how the edits are formed (do they create a new hive post, do they just use a certain account to edit them out, can new edits be granted a new post/comment), it could make it worthwhile to people to contribute more.
I guess the hard part would be knowing how much of the contributions are vetted and how much effort was put behind it, I.e. someone didn't just copy a contribution already on wiki and pasted it on your app for some post rewards by an unknowing curator.
It's all in the @propolis.eng account, edits do edit the post. No new rewardables.
I guess the hard part would be knowing how much of the contributions are vetted and how much effort was put behind it, I.e. someone didn't just copy a contribution already on wiki and pasted it on your app for some post rewards by an unknowing curator.
Absolutely. Not just copies, but also structuring, formatting and sourcing. A good wiki post is a post that doesn't need edits by others, but that's not something curators on hive look for. Giving hive rewards to authors wouldn't lead to a high quality wiki, but a few minimum effort posts about topics that would have a probability of attracting a high value vote.
Ah, I was thinking edits in terms of updates or changes to the fact, like how people run to wiki whenever someone famous dies to edit in "-2024" and cause of death. Or include Apple 16's new release in the wiki about Apple products, etc.
I guess edit's like that could "deserve" some rewards for people staying up to date and contributing.
I glanced at it the other day and to no surprise a lot of things were hive-related like usual with our apps/front-ends. My concern would be not to reward contributions where close to no real human effort went behind it other than copying something from somewhere, I suppose your project wouldn't mind the additional contributions but you'd need curators to check what the contribution was. Obviously most contributions can't even be something other than copy-pasting because it'd be pointless to put things into own words when it's just sharing facts.
It'd probably have to rely mostly on as you stated, top contributor achievements/rewards but split up in many unique ways. Either way compared to wiki these days contributors there make nothing while the website begs for more funding to stay alive. Something hive can easily improve.
Scope is another thing. Right now it's very hive centered, as that's the editors' main interest. It could be many things, even forks or interconnected individual instances focused on specific topics would be an option. I think the most valuable thing for hive would be if it could be established as a general crypto wiki. But whatever the content should be, it needs people who know about it, and know enough to create a wiki article that's really covering the topic in a way that everyone can learn from it.
Spreading the rewards might be the way to go, but if you look at the total rewards the posts got so far, and divide that by the amount of edits you'll realize that a few cents per contribution won't motivate anyone long term.
Myeah, it'd need its own reward pool I guess from previous generated post rewards.
We started off with a weekly $25 and monthly $50 "editor of the ..." contest, which is way more than organic posting rewards could provide consistently. That didn't work out for a combination of reasons, but in the end it just wasn't enough to pay enough people. And spreading the few rewards it gets would be incredibly difficult to do fairly, as contribution quality varies wildly but is also subjective to a certain degree.
There's no money to be made with a wiki. It'll either be a project embraced and maintained by a dedicated community, or not reach its full potential.
I feel like there should be curation-methods to reward contributions in one way or another and at the same time giving the curators/moderators part of the rewards. If I could understand it more how the edits are formed (do they create a new hive post, do they just use a certain account to edit them out, can new edits be granted a new post/comment), it could make it worthwhile to people to contribute more.
I guess the hard part would be knowing how much of the contributions are vetted and how much effort was put behind it, I.e. someone didn't just copy a contribution already on wiki and pasted it on your app for some post rewards by an unknowing curator.
It's all in the @propolis.eng account, edits do edit the post. No new rewardables.
Absolutely. Not just copies, but also structuring, formatting and sourcing. A good wiki post is a post that doesn't need edits by others, but that's not something curators on hive look for. Giving hive rewards to authors wouldn't lead to a high quality wiki, but a few minimum effort posts about topics that would have a probability of attracting a high value vote.
Ah, I was thinking edits in terms of updates or changes to the fact, like how people run to wiki whenever someone famous dies to edit in "-2024" and cause of death. Or include Apple 16's new release in the wiki about Apple products, etc.
I guess edit's like that could "deserve" some rewards for people staying up to date and contributing.
I glanced at it the other day and to no surprise a lot of things were hive-related like usual with our apps/front-ends. My concern would be not to reward contributions where close to no real human effort went behind it other than copying something from somewhere, I suppose your project wouldn't mind the additional contributions but you'd need curators to check what the contribution was. Obviously most contributions can't even be something other than copy-pasting because it'd be pointless to put things into own words when it's just sharing facts.
It'd probably have to rely mostly on as you stated, top contributor achievements/rewards but split up in many unique ways. Either way compared to wiki these days contributors there make nothing while the website begs for more funding to stay alive. Something hive can easily improve.
Scope is another thing. Right now it's very hive centered, as that's the editors' main interest. It could be many things, even forks or interconnected individual instances focused on specific topics would be an option. I think the most valuable thing for hive would be if it could be established as a general crypto wiki. But whatever the content should be, it needs people who know about it, and know enough to create a wiki article that's really covering the topic in a way that everyone can learn from it.
Spreading the rewards might be the way to go, but if you look at the total rewards the posts got so far, and divide that by the amount of edits you'll realize that a few cents per contribution won't motivate anyone long term.
Where are the nerds when you need them most?
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
View or trade
BEER.Hey @pharesim, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below