Let contributors receive voluntary donations for their work
This is a very serious question that should not be dismissed lightly. You go to work because you wont to, not because someone is paying you. Otherwise, you don't work there. If you don't wont, it does not matter how much someone is offering to pay you. Most people are not mercenaries or turns tricks for free. This complex issue ties into recognition, compensation and the Wikimedia Foundation business model. The first two topics are addressed in different threads on this discussion page. The Wikimedia Foundation business model has been the object of much discussion elsewhere, maybe even here on some thread that I haven't read yet.
The type on monetization suggested might not be very successful, but I guess we'll never know until a significant number of editors try it. The two options seem to be: a) you do it on your own; b) you do it within some Wikimedia Foundation framework. It would not hurt to try both and monitor their success. Nothing can stop you from doing it on your own, and you're under no obligation to report back. The Foundation has established its own reward and incentive system which includes employment and scholarships, that involve its own set of conflicts of interest. Foundation staff edit and participate in community affairs as they see fit. This whole discussion is an example. Some other cases are legendary.
It has been reported and I have first hand knowledge of the fact that some people would not contributed to any Wikimedia Foundation project without adequate monetary compensation. Of course, no one knows how much of the Wikimedia Foundation projects content is produced by paid editors[1], and everyone is entitled to believe in whatever he or she wants. Full disclosure: Most, if not all content that I have produced directly or indirectly for Wikimedia Foundation projects, being in my area of expertise, has been done as part of my job for which I am paid. No one pays me to participate in discussions like this or of any other kind in Wikimedia Foundation projects. In case you are wondering and to save you the trouble of visiting my user page, I teach at a university and my students produce content for Wikimedia Foundation projects to satisfy their course requirements.
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado
A traditional, commercial encyclopedia buys articles on a market. If a graduate student can write a good enough article on the history of Napoleon, there is no need to hire a more expensive professor to do the same job. The publishing deadline might increase the price. Wikipedia does exactly the same, with the only difference that there is no publishing deadline and the current bargaining price is zero. If it would turn out that absolutely noone would write for free in Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation might have to pay for articles being written. But so far this has not happened. The Foundation also pays very little for software development, which is largely carried out on an unpaid volunteer basis. Only a few dozen developers are salaried by the Foundation.
If you can write good articles about the history of Napoleon, or whatever, and want to get paid for your work, you should offer your services to several publishers of encyclopedias and pick the one that pays best. Wikipedia is not the only one.
My point was, & remains, that some of us can't contribute because we have to make a living; this becomes more the case the older the would-be contributor, for example. And in many scholarly endeavors, key contributors do receive an income -- like James Murray, chief editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. If we were to enforce the ban on paid editting consistently, academics & other professional experts would also be banned from contributing in their area of expertise.
The Foundation pays programmers & other IT support people, all of whom like to work with computers. Why is it such a hard logical leap for people to understand that there are situations where we should pay contributors?