Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Post History

72%
+6 −1
Q&A What incentives are there currently to edit and moderate? Should there be more?

Intrinsic & extrinsic motivation, and perverse incentives It is clear that your intentions are good, but the outcomes may not be. Intrinsic or extrinsic? People's motivation for making edits...

posted 9mo ago by trichoplax‭  ·  edited 9mo ago by trichoplax‭

Answer
#4: Post edited by user avatar trichoplax‭ · 2024-02-14T15:50:47Z (9 months ago)
Attempt to make clear that I am not against small edits, only the incentive to make them smaller
  • ## Intrinsic & extrinsic motivation, and perverse incentives
  • It is clear that your intentions are good, but the outcomes may not be.
  • ### Intrinsic or extrinsic?
  • People's motivation for making edits may be [intrinsic or extrinsic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Intrinsic_and_extrinsic). That is, they may be motivated by the desire to see the site improve, or the desire for personal reward.
  • I would expect the best results from people who want to see the site improve. This will motivate them to make each edit the best they can.
  • I would expect worse results from people who want to earn a reward. It is difficult to judge the value of an edit (it is simply accepted or rejected), so the reward will be received every time an edit is not rejected. This encourages many low quality edits that are good enough to be accepted, rather than making all of the possible improvements to each post.
  • ### Perverse incentives
  • In addition to prioritising quantity over quality, a well meaning reward may also introduce [perverse incentives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive). If there is a reward per edit then there is an incentive to split up a full edit into as many separate small edits as possible, to get the reward multiple times. Since there is also an incentive to hide this behaviour to avoid any consequences, the subsequent small edits may be left for later and potentially be forgotten and never made.
  • ### Conclusion
  • For these two reasons, I would much prefer to see no additional reward for making edits. There is already a small reward for suggested edits in that each one counts towards earning the ["Edit Posts" ability](https://meta.codidact.com/abilities/edit_posts).
  • ## Intrinsic & extrinsic motivation, and perverse incentives
  • It is clear that your intentions are good, but the outcomes may not be.
  • ### Intrinsic or extrinsic?
  • People's motivation for making edits may be [intrinsic or extrinsic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Intrinsic_and_extrinsic). That is, they may be motivated by the desire to see the site improve, or the desire for personal reward.
  • I would expect the best results from people who want to see the site improve. This will motivate them to make each edit the best they can.
  • I would expect worse results from people who want to earn a reward. It is difficult to judge the value of an edit (it is simply accepted or rejected), so the reward will be received every time an edit is not rejected. This encourages edits to many different posts that are just good enough to be accepted, rather than making all of the improvements to each post that the editor would have otherwise chosen to make.
  • ### Perverse incentives
  • In addition to prioritising quantity over quality, a well meaning reward may also introduce [perverse incentives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive). If there is a reward per edit then there is an incentive to split up a full edit into as many separate small edits as possible, to get the reward multiple times. Since there is also an incentive to hide this behaviour to avoid any consequences, the subsequent small edits may be left for later and potentially be forgotten and never made.
  • ### Conclusion
  • For these two reasons, I would much prefer to see no additional reward for making edits. There is already a small reward for suggested edits in that each one counts towards earning the ["Edit Posts" ability](https://meta.codidact.com/abilities/edit_posts).
#3: Post edited by user avatar trichoplax‭ · 2024-02-12T22:59:20Z (9 months ago)
Fix ambiguity
  • ## Intrinsic & extrinsic motivation, and perverse incentives
  • It is clear that your intentions are good, but the outcomes may not be.
  • ### Intrinsic or extrinsic?
  • People's motivation for making edits may be [intrinsic or extrinsic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Intrinsic_and_extrinsic). That is, they may be motivated by the desire to see the site improve, or the desire for personal reward.
  • I would expect the best results from people who want to see the site improve. This will motivate them to make each edit the best they can.
  • I would expect worse results from people who want to earn a reward. It is difficult to judge the value of an edit (it is simply accepted or rejected), so the reward will be received every time an edit is not rejected. This encourages many low quality edits that are good enough to be accepted, rather than making all of the improvements possible to each post.
  • ### Perverse incentives
  • In addition to prioritising quantity over quality, a well meaning reward may also introduce [perverse incentives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive). If there is a reward per edit then there is an incentive to split up a full edit into as many separate small edits as possible, to get the reward multiple times. Since there is also an incentive to hide this behaviour to avoid any consequences, the subsequent small edits may be left for later and potentially be forgotten and never made.
  • ### Conclusion
  • For these two reasons, I would much prefer to see no additional reward for making edits. There is already a small reward for suggested edits in that each one counts towards earning the ["Edit Posts" ability](https://meta.codidact.com/abilities/edit_posts).
  • ## Intrinsic & extrinsic motivation, and perverse incentives
  • It is clear that your intentions are good, but the outcomes may not be.
  • ### Intrinsic or extrinsic?
  • People's motivation for making edits may be [intrinsic or extrinsic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Intrinsic_and_extrinsic). That is, they may be motivated by the desire to see the site improve, or the desire for personal reward.
  • I would expect the best results from people who want to see the site improve. This will motivate them to make each edit the best they can.
  • I would expect worse results from people who want to earn a reward. It is difficult to judge the value of an edit (it is simply accepted or rejected), so the reward will be received every time an edit is not rejected. This encourages many low quality edits that are good enough to be accepted, rather than making all of the possible improvements to each post.
  • ### Perverse incentives
  • In addition to prioritising quantity over quality, a well meaning reward may also introduce [perverse incentives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive). If there is a reward per edit then there is an incentive to split up a full edit into as many separate small edits as possible, to get the reward multiple times. Since there is also an incentive to hide this behaviour to avoid any consequences, the subsequent small edits may be left for later and potentially be forgotten and never made.
  • ### Conclusion
  • For these two reasons, I would much prefer to see no additional reward for making edits. There is already a small reward for suggested edits in that each one counts towards earning the ["Edit Posts" ability](https://meta.codidact.com/abilities/edit_posts).
#2: Post edited by user avatar trichoplax‭ · 2024-02-12T17:48:52Z (9 months ago)
Use ampersand to keep heading on one line
  • ## Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and perverse incentives
  • It is clear that your intentions are good, but the outcomes may not be.
  • ### Intrinsic or extrinsic?
  • People's motivation for making edits may be [intrinsic or extrinsic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Intrinsic_and_extrinsic). That is, they may be motivated by the desire to see the site improve, or the desire for personal reward.
  • I would expect the best results from people who want to see the site improve. This will motivate them to make each edit the best they can.
  • I would expect worse results from people who want to earn a reward. It is difficult to judge the value of an edit (it is simply accepted or rejected), so the reward will be received every time an edit is not rejected. This encourages many low quality edits that are good enough to be accepted, rather than making all of the improvements possible to each post.
  • ### Perverse incentives
  • In addition to prioritising quantity over quality, a well meaning reward may also introduce [perverse incentives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive). If there is a reward per edit then there is an incentive to split up a full edit into as many separate small edits as possible, to get the reward multiple times. Since there is also an incentive to hide this behaviour to avoid any consequences, the subsequent small edits may be left for later and potentially be forgotten and never made.
  • ### Conclusion
  • For these two reasons, I would much prefer to see no additional reward for making edits. There is already a small reward for suggested edits in that each one counts towards earning the ["Edit Posts" ability](https://meta.codidact.com/abilities/edit_posts).
  • ## Intrinsic & extrinsic motivation, and perverse incentives
  • It is clear that your intentions are good, but the outcomes may not be.
  • ### Intrinsic or extrinsic?
  • People's motivation for making edits may be [intrinsic or extrinsic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Intrinsic_and_extrinsic). That is, they may be motivated by the desire to see the site improve, or the desire for personal reward.
  • I would expect the best results from people who want to see the site improve. This will motivate them to make each edit the best they can.
  • I would expect worse results from people who want to earn a reward. It is difficult to judge the value of an edit (it is simply accepted or rejected), so the reward will be received every time an edit is not rejected. This encourages many low quality edits that are good enough to be accepted, rather than making all of the improvements possible to each post.
  • ### Perverse incentives
  • In addition to prioritising quantity over quality, a well meaning reward may also introduce [perverse incentives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive). If there is a reward per edit then there is an incentive to split up a full edit into as many separate small edits as possible, to get the reward multiple times. Since there is also an incentive to hide this behaviour to avoid any consequences, the subsequent small edits may be left for later and potentially be forgotten and never made.
  • ### Conclusion
  • For these two reasons, I would much prefer to see no additional reward for making edits. There is already a small reward for suggested edits in that each one counts towards earning the ["Edit Posts" ability](https://meta.codidact.com/abilities/edit_posts).
#1: Initial revision by user avatar trichoplax‭ · 2024-02-12T17:48:21Z (9 months ago)
## Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and perverse incentives
It is clear that your intentions are good, but the outcomes may not be.
### Intrinsic or extrinsic?
People's motivation for making edits may be [intrinsic or extrinsic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Intrinsic_and_extrinsic). That is, they may be motivated by the desire to see the site improve, or the desire for personal reward.

I would expect the best results from people who want to see the site improve. This will motivate them to make each edit the best they can.

I would expect worse results from people who want to earn a reward. It is difficult to judge the value of an edit (it is simply accepted or rejected), so the reward will be received every time an edit is not rejected. This encourages many low quality edits that are good enough to be accepted, rather than making all of the improvements possible to each post.

### Perverse incentives
In addition to prioritising quantity over quality, a well meaning reward may also introduce [perverse incentives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive). If there is a reward per edit then there is an incentive to split up a full edit into as many separate small edits as possible, to get the reward multiple times. Since there is also an incentive to hide this behaviour to avoid any consequences, the subsequent small edits may be left for later and potentially be forgotten and never made.

### Conclusion
For these two reasons, I would much prefer to see no additional reward for making edits. There is already a small reward for suggested edits in that each one counts towards earning the ["Edit Posts" ability](https://meta.codidact.com/abilities/edit_posts).