[sundarurfriend]

> Wikipedia has helped me so much, it's important to pay back: The WMF has done a reasonable job of stewardship, but I believe that insofar as there inheres a strong moral obligation to pay back, this obligation is to content creators. Donating to the WMF does not reward past content creators.

That's an interesting point, and it got me thinking: what does reward past content creators? As someone who has contributed to and created Wikipedia articles in the past, I tried to imagine what would feel like a reward to me, and the things that come to mind are:

a. People adding to those articles and making them more and more polished, turning them into A-class articles that I'd be proud to have contributed to.

b. Knowing that the article has helped someone in some specific way, changing their life a little bit. Some kind of "thank you" page attached to the articles would be nice, where a school kid could tell you how the article brought the subject to life for her, or a middle aged man could say thanks for informing him about his medical condition. (I can see the practical issues with this, but even a heavily-moderated slowly-updated page would serve the purpose, and would provide positive value.)

[Mediterraneo10]

Some of the most heavily-contributing editors to Wikipedia are on the autistic spectrum. (I don’t think this is a very controversial statement for anyone involved in the community.) They are editing because organizing information and making articles as complete as possible assuages an inner itch – essentially the work is its own reward. Paying them for their activity would not change much, and I personally would question whether it is even necessary.

[eindiran]

What does some editors being on the spectrum have to do with anything? OP's point was that if you are going to financially reward anyone for providing you with well-written Wikipedia articles ideally it would be the people who created the articles, and donating money to the WMF doesn't reward these people at all.

[pchristensen]

I think it was another answer to the GP question "what does reward past content creators?"

The editing and organizing work is satisfying to some types of people, including some people on the autism spectrum. And that specific type of satisfying work is rewarding to them. Kind of like how a freshly mown lawn is satisfying to others. There are plenty of people who love mowing their lawn that would hate to do it as a job for others.

[DoofusOfDeath]

I think GP's point was that for many contributors, simply organizing the information well is its own reward. And therefore being paid for that work is a smaller deal than it might be for other populations.

[sprafa]

I was going to complain but my experience with Wikipedia is this is pretty true.

[supernova87a]

I continue to find it amazing and admirable that it is a trait of humanity (or some people within humanity) to want to record/create/leave behind information about the world and explain it to others. At little to no reward to themselves aside from satisfaction and fulfillment.