This may be a cultural thing, but some people value symbolic prizes over
cash ones.
Here in the UK the most prestigious quiz show has only one prize per series
- a cut glass bowl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastermind_%28TV_series%29
Other shows may make you rich, but they don't have the same cachet.
That's why I think it is important to look at who gives the barnstar or
whatever, how relevant the award is to the best work that the recipient
does and how it is presented. My suspicion of the recent Barnstar test is
that when recipients went to the awarders talkpage to see who'd given them
that barnstar, and frequently to say thanks, the number of others doing the
same may have devalued the barnstar. If I'm right the earlier recipients
will perform differently to the later ones when adjusted for chronology.
An interesting alternative would be to get a bunch of experienced editors
to each award a small number of barnstars.
WSC
On 7 May 2012 13:23, Joe Corneli <holtzermann17(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<quote
who="Chitu Okoli" date="Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 04:02:39PM -0400">
> In this case, I actually started this project with the hunch that
> barnstars would lead to a slight decline in editing behavior;
That's the projected conclusion from e.g. Alfie Kohn,
http://naggum.no/motivation.html
also included in Emacs distros as ./etc/MOTIVATION
It may be important that the barnstars are ephemeral/symbolic - if
they could be traded for cash they might have less of an effect.
Still, Kohn extends the 'critique' (if it is one) to symbolic praise
(viz symbolic violence)
http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/gj.htm
(Note, I realize most WP top editors are not children, and the logic
of praise may be very different in different age groups.)
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l