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
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...
Answer
#4: Post edited
by
trichoplax
·
2024-02-14T15:50:47Z (10 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
trichoplax
·
2024-02-12T22:59:20Z (10 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
trichoplax
·
2024-02-12T17:48:52Z (10 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
trichoplax
·
2024-02-12T17:48:21Z (10 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).