Thereward board is an informal page where users who want a specific task related to Wikipedia (such as the promotion of an article tofeatured article status or the editing of an image) can offer a reward to editors willing to take on the task. The execution and details of the transaction are the responsibility of the participating parties, and the reward can be monetary, goods (books, cookies, etc.),barnstars, or tit-for-tat editing (like improving another article).
Reward board is similar to the defunctBounty board; however, instead of a donation to theWikimedia Foundation, payment is made directly to a specific editor.
TheWikimedia Foundation is not hiring contributors and no payments are made by theFoundation. This is purely a page for editors to offer rewards to other editors. Challenges may remain open for a maximum duration of one year. After that period of time, the challenge will be moved toexpired requests; however, the author of the challenge may repost the challenge with a new expiration period. The aim of this policy is to keep the board clutter-free, ensure editors are available to fulfill such challenges, and to ensure the challenges are still valid.
If you would like to offer a reward such as the ones below, simply add an entry below. Add all the details that you feel are relevant to the reward, in a format similar to this pattern:
===Reward title===*'''Offeror''': ~~~*'''Date offered''': ~~~~~*'''Request''': What needs to be done to claim the award.*'''Reward''': The reward you are offering.*'''Limit on rewards''': In the case of possible multiple rewards, any limit set.*'''Expires''': Date until which your offer is valid. Max expiration date is one year from offer date.*'''Sign-up''': Person interested in taking on the task. Please provide expected completion date.
In the case of a monetary offer, please specify country currency. Numerous countries use the same symbols.
Reward: £300 (or equivalent in EUR/USD, negotiable). Please do not begin work without prior agreement, unsolicited drafts will not be considered for the reward.
Limit on rewards: 1 (paid once the draft is successfully submitted through AfC).
Expires: 30 September 2025 (or earlier if completed).
Sign-up: Please reply here or on my talk page if interested. Editors must comply withWP:PAID and disclose paid editing as required.
Thank you for the feedback, Drmies. I understand the concern about notability. The French article is quite basic, and I agree it doesn’t yet demonstrate much in the way of notability. My team is currently working on collecting a broader set of third-party, independent English-language sources that provide more substantial coverage of Pigment (and of Eleanore Crespo as co-founder). Once we have that evidence pack ready, I’ll be happy to share it here for review so you can better assess whether the company and/or founder would meet the English Wikipedia notability guidelines.Isa Thu Ha Nguyen (talk)15:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating the draft. However, I need to clarify a few things: Pigment should not be described as a “unicorn startup.” This is not neutral or encyclopedic language. The company has not “incorporated Gemini into its products.” The correct information is that in May 2025, Pigment announced a partnership with Google Cloud to accelerate AI-led business planning, which includes access to Gemini and other Vertex AI capabilities. I also want to emphasize that I’m not looking for a translation of the French Wikipedia page. The English article should be developed independently, based on reliable sources, rather than mirroring content that may contain inaccuracies or local phrasing. For the sake of accuracy and neutrality, I’ll work on improving the draft with verifiable information: the founding year (2019), the co-founders (Éléonore Crespo and Romain Niccoli), the product scope, major funding rounds, and official partnerships. Reliable sources include TechCrunch, Le Monde, and Pigment’s own press releases. I’d prefer to continue refining the page along those lines to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards.Isa Thu Ha Nguyen (talk)16:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content I wrote is based on reliable sources, which are cited. A unicorn startup is a business valued over a billion dollars; Pigment is a business valued over a billion dollars. There's nothing unencyclopedic or non-neutral about that. You are welcome to edit as you see fit: Wikipedia is a collaborative project. No, Pigment's own press releases do not qualify as reliable sources. A list of funding rounds is boring and routine, and at no point should that be the main part of an article. "Official partnerships" sounds like a buzz word: include such material only if secondary sources guarantee that it's noteworthy. Sorry, but if you need a whole team to write up a Wikipedia draft on a billion-dollar company, I don't think I need you to tell me what's encyclopedic and what's not. Again, feel free to edit the draft: there is no charge.Drmies (talk)16:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, thank you for taking the time to respond and for starting a draft. I need to clarify a few things.
First, I hadn’t originally specified this on my Reward Board post, but I’ve now made it explicit: I’m only looking to collaborate with editors after we’ve agreed on terms. For that reason, I won’t be moving forward with the draft you started, and it won’t be considered part of the reward.
Second, I respect your points on reliable sourcing and neutrality. I agree that only independent, third-party sources should be used, and I fully recognize that company press releases are not sufficient. That said, I would prefer that the article avoid phrasing like “unicorn startup,” which, while technically descriptive, can come across as promotional. My goal is to ensure the English article is developed independently from the French one, using high-quality coverage from outlets like TechCrunch, Le Monde, and the Financial Times, and framed in neutral, factual language.
I appreciate your time and perspective, but I’ll wait to work with another editor who is comfortable with the process I’ve outlined. Thanks for your understanding.Isa Thu Ha Nguyen (talk)09:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Promote one or moretop-importance WikiProject Korea articles toWP:GOODARTICLE. Some negotiable limitations: mustcurrently be below B grade, cannot be primarily about South Korean pop culture or North Korea (these topics have enough editors already), lists are discouraged, and noHibiscus syriacus. Also, depending on the topic, Korean speakers preferred but not mandatory (non-native is ok); English-language sources often sparse or lacking.
Reward: $150+ per promoted article; I may raise based on difficulty and importance. Can convert to your preferred currency.
Limit on rewards: Total reward pool $1500, subject to increase.
Expires: In one year (January 6, 2026)
Sign-up: Please only take this up if you're confident in your ability to complete the project (metric: you've already completed at least one GA before). To sign up, either send me a private user mail or post on my talk page with what article you want to do. I'll respond with a price. Happy to help you work on the article, if you'd like.
Reward: I will offer theKorea orHistory barnstar and to improve an article, preferably about history, of your choosing..
Limit on rewards: You can pick which barnstar you get and which page I should improve.
Expires: In one year (December 26, 2025)
Sign-up: Please message me onmy talkpage to sign up, only one editor is allowed to take on this challenge, and send a message on my talkpage again when it has become agood topic.
Limit on rewards: If more than 25 articles are contributed to the cricket barnstar along with a barnstar of your choice will be awarded. There are total of 53 articles.
Task: I am seeking help refiningDraft:Marla Stone (author) for acceptance through Articles for Creation. The draft is already written and includes multiple reliable, independent sources (Booklist, Library Journal, Foreword Reviews, Seattle Book Review, The Book Commentary, Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register, etc.).
Scope: - Ensure strict compliance with WP: BLP and WP: NPOV.- Check all references for formatting and reliability.- Remove any promotional tone.- Polish the wikitext and prepare for AfC resubmission.- One revision round after reviewer feedback, if needed.
Reward: Gratitude and thanks! (Happy to credit on Talk page. No financial compensation is offered here; if that is needed, please let me know the best practice.)
Contact:User:Raisedconsciousness ( the article subject ). I will fully disclose any assistance, as per WP: PAID, if financial compensation becomes involved.
Requests: Complete or build (in order of urgency/importance; only #1 is super important)—
The{{Infobox election runoff}} template, based on either{{Infobox election}} or one of its foreign-language variants (Spanish and French have some decent-looking ones). This should include a way to display final/best-round results for each candidate or two-party-preference vote totals, and percentage calculations from raw vote totals.
{{Election results-STV}} should be edited to include calculations of exhausted ballots in each round, the code should be tidied up a bit, and documentation needed.
Lots of people who citenewspapers.com simply, and incorrectly, link to the full page of a newspaper that comes up from a search in their citations. This makes it difficult to pin down the source and inaccessible to anyone who doesn't have a newspapers.com subscription. So, if you have one (you can get one throughthe Wikipedia Library), you can instead clip the newspaper article being cited so that the citation is precise and accessible! You'll know you've made a clipping when you can replace the /image URL with a /article URL. A list of pages that needs fixing can be foundhere. Enjoy!theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)04:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not personally interested, but it's really interesting to see QPQs be used as a sort of de facto "money" on Wikipedia. You could imagine the creation of some sort of "article improvement credit", where you can get one in the first place by getting a GA (or something), and then spend it by giving it to someone else, who will then improve an article and spend it on an article they want improved. Sort of like changing the barter system (article for article) to a monetary system. Of course, there's probably not enough demand for all that, but it would be fun.Mrfoogles (talk)22:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see theCommunity portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see theDashboard.
_logo_text_only.png){kind=logo}
