[WikiEN-l] Could we use a chore wheel?

[Ray Saintonge]

Charlotte Webb wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> IMHO that's a simplistic, very self-centered view of Wikipedians,
>> prioritising immediate self-gratification over all else. Altruism is more
>> complicated than that: If you've ever seen a good, functioning volunteer
>> organisation, it's not "everyone, do whatever you feel like doing, we won't
>> boss you around", it's "we can achieve something amazing if everyone pitches
>> in. Team A, you will do X..."
>>     
> No, I really believe that people prefer to help by doing things they
> enjoy and which match their interests and skills. I also believe that
> most people are better able to select appropriate work for themselves
> (and subsequently perform it) than to select work for others (and/or
> perform work selected for them by others). I don't believe I'm alone
> in saying I would react with disinterest (or even umbrage) to
> anybody's "you do this" list, whether it's hand-delivered or not.[1]
> "Hobbyist" is, after all, a more comforting identity than
> "uncompensated laborer".
>   
To a volunteer it can be very annoying when others are busy doing 
nothing but finding work for yet others to do rather than doing it 
themselves.  Finding sources can be an example.  I respect a person who 
shows evidence of looking for sources himself much more than one who 
just goes around putting tags in articles.  Finding references requires 
a lot more work than putting a tag, even in the easy cases.  When the 
tag comes with an ultimatum to fix it or have the article deleted, the 
unnecessary urgency gets more people annoyed than articles fixed.
>> It's in the nature of people that we *do* like working, and being told what
>> to do, if there is some reward.
>>     
> There is always a slight reward, but it's usually a deeply personal
> (and sometimes delicate) one.
>
> Maybe you're doing something that you enjoy, so you have fun while
> you're doing it. Maybe it gratifies your ego to behold the finished
> product (be it a featured article, or a decent stub, or a compelling
> edit count, or victory in a revert war, or Arbcom concluding that
> you've done nothing wrong). Maybe you get recognized/quoted in a news
> article about Wikipedia. Maybe you feel less lonely when random people
> notice your edits, or expand a stub you created (the more obscure[2]
> the topic is, the greater the reward!) Or maybe just the fulfillment
> of whatever goals you have set for yourself, or the feeling that other
> Wikipedians consider you a likable or trustworthy person (particularly
> if "real-lifers" generally do not).
>
> Or for some, the escapism is reward enough. Burst that bubble and
> other pastimes could begin to appear more attractive than this one
> (and obviously no less lucrative).
>
> —C.W.
>
> [1] Eh, I mean I seriously doubt I'd be alone in feeling this way,
> even if I am alone in admitting it.
> [2] (or "non-notable" if you must... grrrrrr)
Please don't replace "obscure" with "non-notable".  Too many dogs have a 
pavlovian response to the latter term, much to the chagrin of 
renaissance dogs.

Ec