![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on April 3, 2011. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on October 25, 2013. The result of the discussion was Mark as historical. |
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?
People keep saying 'pay the editors'... maybe. If so, it should be done like the mccarthur genius grants, the nobel prizes, tenured professorships, or other highly rigorous methods of granting money, that are designed to reward people who have demonstrated that they aren't in it for the money. It might work if there is some 'board' of wikipedia admins who review the best editors and decide to give them awards or grants. Obviously the people on this board cannot themselves ever be payed... nor can they be payed at some later date after leaving the board, and nor can people who receive such grants ever become members of the board. Nor can there be a personal relationship between admins on this board and editors who get grants.
or better yet, leave things the way they are. it isn't broken, so don't fix it.
Interesting idea. I'll think about it. Who decides when to award bounty? -- Fred Bauder 18:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I really like this idea; kudos for coming up with something new. Any chance of seeing it implemented soon? I wonder how many people are likely to participate. :) -- Ambi 23:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I think there should be a template on the article talk page to indicate there is a bounty on its head. -- Borisblue 02:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've changed the image to that of a pirate on the supposition that buccaneers are jollier than space opera rogues. Well, I think it's an improvement...-- Pharos 08:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm a bit hesitant about this being on the talk page for the article I'm bounty-offering... I'd rather my name not be displayed so blatantly, for a number of reasons. Kalo 01:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
These are questions and comments about the Forgotten biographies bounty.
I saw the note re: the George Psalmanazar Prize in Forgotten Biography. Thanks! Indeed, there never has been a book-length biography of Felice Beato in any language. A small number of monographs have been published on his work but apart from the (excellent) chapter-length chronology of Beato in John Clark's "Japanese Exchanges in Art" I believe this Wikipedia article is the first and most complete consolidation of the latest information regarding Felice Beato's life. Pinkville 19:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
It isn't a problem with the bounty board, it's a problem with the rest of wikipedia's lack of reviewed things like Featured Article. If Good Articles had a small, administration reviewed voting process like articles for deletion does, then all would be solved here AND people that genuinely believe they've got a good article because they don't understand what original research is or why it isn't allowed could be better "schooled" 66.41.66.213 05:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I just heard of this. This sounds highly problematic; I would say objectionable. Offering money (even if the money is to be given to a charity) for doing things on wikipedia is a very bad idea. It will distort the wikipedia process. Say someone (let's exaggerate here) offers $50 million if an article makes FA status. Don't people think this will lead to a distortion of FA procedure? This is one of the reasons wikipedia does not make use of "affiliate" links for amazon.com or whatever when referring to books. Any hint of pay-for-play (pay-for-coverage) is a bad, bad idea.
Furthermore, say a company offers $50 for users to bring an article about their company to FA status? Let's just say for the sake of argument it's a company that wikipedia generally has a nice article on, like, say, google. I think we can all agree that there is something somewhat not-OK with that scenario. Even if the article is totally NPOV and a wonderful example of wikipedia's work, really what's happened is that a company has "bought" themselves a place on the front page for a day (and possibly quite cheap!)
Look, I'm not saying wikipedia is fool-proof without bounties, and totally messed-up with. I applaud charity, and the idea behind it. But it seems to be a very flawed idea. That I think maybe you folks should rethink?
In what way is this "bounty board" official wikipedia policy? Was it discussed by anybody? -- Sdedeo 10:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Finally -- here are a few suggestions for things I think would be important to include (I am not sure what the rules are on "project pages", and in general, I think people can do sort of whatever -- I'm not going to cause an "official" fuss.)
I don't think these will solve all the problems, but they would be a very good idea. A general "ethics" statement would be important. Again, just because the money goes to charity does not make it "clean"; many people do dirty things to make money, and then give most of it away :).
I promise you a number of groups really want their group to be featured as an FA, and will go to lengths to get there. Opus Dei is an example (I was involved with their peer review.) Their FA was denied, but they really made a solid push for it, in ways I think tried to subvert the process. Wikipedia is not a "small" place any more, and PR firms pay a lot of attention (in the OD case, it was the London office of the group.) -- Sdedeo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
I like this page. One comment, however. I don't think that it's necessarily "contrary to the wiki philosophy" to have someone paid to edit Wikipedia articles. If an editor was paid, it could certainly influence his actions on Wikipedia, but much less so than strongly held convictions about, say, religion or politics, and we already handle such editors quite easily. If one editor wants to pay another editor to do a task, then that's up to them. -- — Matt Crypto 16:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying it shouldn't happen - I'm just saying many people believe it shouldn't happen, and it's controversial. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 21:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
But yeah, I might add a "non-self-induced" phrasing in my next one. -- Creidieki 04:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
Oh, I've just noticed that Wikipedia:Bounty board#Inflation carries a joint bounty. — Matt Crypto 09:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
The German version of the bounty system allows contributors to be paid for their contributions. We should provide an opportunity for the same. — 0918 BRIAN • 2005-12-29 06:26
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)
As the Saddle Creek Corporation article appears to be destubbed, it is eligible for the half-bounty (US$15 out of US$30), to be paid September 3rd 2006. The full-bounty (for FA status) still stands, and if the article reaches FA status, the full amount will be donated immediately. Kalo 13:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought it'd be appreciated if I sorted the current bounties by deadline:
-- maru (talk) Contribs 00:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Time's up on my bounty for articles with free images. Where should I move it to? -- Carnildo 08:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Time's up on George W. Bush. Ought it be moved to Expired bounties? -- 209.6.189.247 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it's the first specific bounty to be claimed! Woohoo! -- Rampart 00:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is it void if Wales edits it even once? -- maru (talk) contribs 23:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
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. : ) cooki e caper ( talk / contribs) 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I made a few changes to {{ bounty}}, 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)
Here's a userbox for bounty hunters. It doesn't categorize the userpage. Just put {{subst:User:Fleetflame/Bounty}} on your userpage. Enjoy! Fléêťflämẽ U- T- C 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
$ | This user is a Bounty Hunter. |
end
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)
$ 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)
Of interest, including's Jimbo promise to ban anybody editing for $... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Time to archive the expired/fulfilled requests? GoingBatty ( talk) 20:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on April 3, 2011. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on October 25, 2013. The result of the discussion was Mark as historical. |
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?
People keep saying 'pay the editors'... maybe. If so, it should be done like the mccarthur genius grants, the nobel prizes, tenured professorships, or other highly rigorous methods of granting money, that are designed to reward people who have demonstrated that they aren't in it for the money. It might work if there is some 'board' of wikipedia admins who review the best editors and decide to give them awards or grants. Obviously the people on this board cannot themselves ever be payed... nor can they be payed at some later date after leaving the board, and nor can people who receive such grants ever become members of the board. Nor can there be a personal relationship between admins on this board and editors who get grants.
or better yet, leave things the way they are. it isn't broken, so don't fix it.
Interesting idea. I'll think about it. Who decides when to award bounty? -- Fred Bauder 18:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I really like this idea; kudos for coming up with something new. Any chance of seeing it implemented soon? I wonder how many people are likely to participate. :) -- Ambi 23:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I think there should be a template on the article talk page to indicate there is a bounty on its head. -- Borisblue 02:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've changed the image to that of a pirate on the supposition that buccaneers are jollier than space opera rogues. Well, I think it's an improvement...-- Pharos 08:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm a bit hesitant about this being on the talk page for the article I'm bounty-offering... I'd rather my name not be displayed so blatantly, for a number of reasons. Kalo 01:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
These are questions and comments about the Forgotten biographies bounty.
I saw the note re: the George Psalmanazar Prize in Forgotten Biography. Thanks! Indeed, there never has been a book-length biography of Felice Beato in any language. A small number of monographs have been published on his work but apart from the (excellent) chapter-length chronology of Beato in John Clark's "Japanese Exchanges in Art" I believe this Wikipedia article is the first and most complete consolidation of the latest information regarding Felice Beato's life. Pinkville 19:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
It isn't a problem with the bounty board, it's a problem with the rest of wikipedia's lack of reviewed things like Featured Article. If Good Articles had a small, administration reviewed voting process like articles for deletion does, then all would be solved here AND people that genuinely believe they've got a good article because they don't understand what original research is or why it isn't allowed could be better "schooled" 66.41.66.213 05:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I just heard of this. This sounds highly problematic; I would say objectionable. Offering money (even if the money is to be given to a charity) for doing things on wikipedia is a very bad idea. It will distort the wikipedia process. Say someone (let's exaggerate here) offers $50 million if an article makes FA status. Don't people think this will lead to a distortion of FA procedure? This is one of the reasons wikipedia does not make use of "affiliate" links for amazon.com or whatever when referring to books. Any hint of pay-for-play (pay-for-coverage) is a bad, bad idea.
Furthermore, say a company offers $50 for users to bring an article about their company to FA status? Let's just say for the sake of argument it's a company that wikipedia generally has a nice article on, like, say, google. I think we can all agree that there is something somewhat not-OK with that scenario. Even if the article is totally NPOV and a wonderful example of wikipedia's work, really what's happened is that a company has "bought" themselves a place on the front page for a day (and possibly quite cheap!)
Look, I'm not saying wikipedia is fool-proof without bounties, and totally messed-up with. I applaud charity, and the idea behind it. But it seems to be a very flawed idea. That I think maybe you folks should rethink?
In what way is this "bounty board" official wikipedia policy? Was it discussed by anybody? -- Sdedeo 10:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Finally -- here are a few suggestions for things I think would be important to include (I am not sure what the rules are on "project pages", and in general, I think people can do sort of whatever -- I'm not going to cause an "official" fuss.)
I don't think these will solve all the problems, but they would be a very good idea. A general "ethics" statement would be important. Again, just because the money goes to charity does not make it "clean"; many people do dirty things to make money, and then give most of it away :).
I promise you a number of groups really want their group to be featured as an FA, and will go to lengths to get there. Opus Dei is an example (I was involved with their peer review.) Their FA was denied, but they really made a solid push for it, in ways I think tried to subvert the process. Wikipedia is not a "small" place any more, and PR firms pay a lot of attention (in the OD case, it was the London office of the group.) -- Sdedeo 11:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
I like this page. One comment, however. I don't think that it's necessarily "contrary to the wiki philosophy" to have someone paid to edit Wikipedia articles. If an editor was paid, it could certainly influence his actions on Wikipedia, but much less so than strongly held convictions about, say, religion or politics, and we already handle such editors quite easily. If one editor wants to pay another editor to do a task, then that's up to them. -- — Matt Crypto 16:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying it shouldn't happen - I'm just saying many people believe it shouldn't happen, and it's controversial. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 21:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
But yeah, I might add a "non-self-induced" phrasing in my next one. -- Creidieki 04:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
Oh, I've just noticed that Wikipedia:Bounty board#Inflation carries a joint bounty. — Matt Crypto 09:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
The German version of the bounty system allows contributors to be paid for their contributions. We should provide an opportunity for the same. — 0918 BRIAN • 2005-12-29 06:26
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)
As the Saddle Creek Corporation article appears to be destubbed, it is eligible for the half-bounty (US$15 out of US$30), to be paid September 3rd 2006. The full-bounty (for FA status) still stands, and if the article reaches FA status, the full amount will be donated immediately. Kalo 13:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought it'd be appreciated if I sorted the current bounties by deadline:
-- maru (talk) Contribs 00:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Time's up on my bounty for articles with free images. Where should I move it to? -- Carnildo 08:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Time's up on George W. Bush. Ought it be moved to Expired bounties? -- 209.6.189.247 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it's the first specific bounty to be claimed! Woohoo! -- Rampart 00:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is it void if Wales edits it even once? -- maru (talk) contribs 23:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
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. : ) cooki e caper ( talk / contribs) 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I made a few changes to {{ bounty}}, 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)
Here's a userbox for bounty hunters. It doesn't categorize the userpage. Just put {{subst:User:Fleetflame/Bounty}} on your userpage. Enjoy! Fléêťflämẽ U- T- C 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
$ | This user is a Bounty Hunter. |
end
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)
$ 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)
Of interest, including's Jimbo promise to ban anybody editing for $... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Time to archive the expired/fulfilled requests? GoingBatty ( talk) 20:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)