Experienced internet users are likely to be familiar with Wikipedia. It's famous for being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." (tag) It was made even more famous when Nature declares Wikipedia "comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries." That's a victory for the Wikipedian model. Now, there's a proposal to tweak the model.

A new proposal, called the paid editor job board, started by Cookiecaper earlier this week has generated a firestorm of controversy. The proposal, originally named Wikipedia:Now Hiring, operates on a similar principle to Wikipedia:Bounty Board. However, unlike the Bounty Board, the paid editor job board would pay individual editors for specific Wikipedia contributions, instead of giving a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Controversial? You bet.

I've been on English Wikipedia for more than two years now, at least on record. I contribute in return for self-satisfaction and there are more than a million of users like me at Wikipedia. The editors receive no monetary reward whatsoever. Some called it altruism. Whatever it is, our rewards most of the times are recognition by other editors.

Since the current setting is working marvelously so far, it's not surprising at all to observe a sizable group of people to express strong displeasure against the idea. One of the most common objections is that it goes against the spirit of the project. If you are interested, a list of objections and counterpoints could be read at Reward Board's talk page.

As for me, I support the notion of paid editors. What swayed me to the aye side is this:

Wikipedians contribute for a variety of reasons, ranging from pure altruism to logorrhea to enjoyment of the work itself. What's ultimately important is the goal-to write a free, open-content enyclopedia-not the private motivations of the contributors.

Heh. I'm currently working on British Malaya. So, if you'd like to see me work faster on it, how about you paying me?