Funding for SigInst, LW and CFAR are dismally low, even by the standards of regular small nonprofits, and even more catastrophically so with respect to the proportional value and importance of their work.
You’d have to explain and demonstrate in detail how a specific monetary reward strategy is beneficial as a whole before anyone would agree to implement them.
I don’t see any strategy that contains any equilibrium where the content and quality of the wiki is substantially improved in a manner sufficient to outweigh the opportunity cost the required amount of money would incur on other projects.
Payment oriented:
Pay after they write, for particularly valuable improvements, rather than commissioning improvements.
Pay based on community agreement (upvote changes)
Pay based on lottery (triggering intermittent rewards)
Funding for SigInst, LW and CFAR are dismally low, even by the standards of regular small nonprofits, and even more catastrophically so with respect to the proportional value and importance of their work.
You’d have to explain and demonstrate in detail how a specific monetary reward strategy is beneficial as a whole before anyone would agree to implement them.
I don’t see any strategy that contains any equilibrium where the content and quality of the wiki is substantially improved in a manner sufficient to outweigh the opportunity cost the required amount of money would incur on other projects.