Tuomey is writing our policy based on the results of the voting threads. It will then be posted here for refinement and discussion. It will then be posted to the main wiki for the users to look at. If we have major issues or revisions needed at that time, we will hold another vote. Otherwise so long as the policy materially matches what we have voted on, we will go ahead and make the policy official.

First up, we need to make sure housekeeping stuff gets done. Examples:

• Before we declare "Open Season" on posting these links, we need to have an Official Guide to deal with money-related issues.
• We also need to update Site Rules to make some things explicit "just in case". Examples:
  • An explicit rule against staff taking money for anything that is part of their staff duties. An explicit rule against bribery is a good thing.
  • An explicit rule against scams.
• Since clarity is very important, we should point out that staff have the (unusual) right to alter your personal site pages or comments to ensure clarity with regards to donations. (Would be awkward if we forgot to explicitly state that we have that right.)

Separately, in case it's non-obvious:

• Using donations in ways that are disruptive to the community should result in anything from removal of the link to a ban on the user's account, at staff discretion. Examples include:
  • Asking people to pay you to churn out low-quality articles (violates the rule against "Do not spam the site with shitty articles.")
  • Asking people to help you write articles with the intention of upsetting or offending the community in a serious fashion. (Even if those articles themselves end up being acceptable articles.)
  • Asking for payment to violate any rule, however minor, shold be considered a major violation automatically, meriting an instant permanent ban at staff's sole discretion.

Also, underlining this in case it's controversial:

• Any banned users should lose the right to link any donation pages for the duration of their ban. Staff may choose to exercise forbearance; for example, if the ban is temporary, or if the author's banning really had nothing to do with their writing and it's not disruptive to the community to leave their donation link up. (If necessary, this can be resolved by a Disciplinary vote on the individual case, as usual with any form of punishment.)

Dealing With Problems

Staff cannot be neutral/hands off when this happens, because this hypothetical dispute on the site like this would need our intervention.

It's very easy to respond to this. "I paid $10 monthly for X writer to write last month, but they didn't write last month." Okay, so then we check to see if it appears deliberate. If so, we remove that Patreon, and ban the user for a scam. If the writer just got depressed (as is likely usually going to be the case), we do nothing.

This is basic real-world job logic. If you're paying a writer an amount so that they will write, you are choosing to employ them. If they don't do what you paid them to do, you fire them, aka you stop paying them.

This doesn't bother me at all, unlike Kickstarter-style stuff, even if technically it can follow the same logic. The backlash would also very likely be different. If I back a KS and the KS doesn't produce anything and vanishes, then I feel robbed, and there's absolutely nothing, nothing at all, that I can do about it. If I pay a witer a tiny monthly wage to keep them writing (and I'm a fan enough of theirs that I'd be okay with this), and they don't write anything, then I feel disappointed and I don't pay them next month. My money may be gone that I already spent, but I won't be paying them next month, and that's my recourse. If this occured over six months, or a year, then I would be far more disappointed, but frankly, that's my own poor judgment (or own deliberate choice), much more strongly than it would be for a KS project.

The same logic applies to, say, funding a month of KaktusKast (even if it were done on the Kickstarter platform, which it could technically be).

I think strength of backlash should be taken into account. We've all seen huge Kickstarter backlashes when projects fail to materialize (and frankly, I sympathize with those, even though I've been careful to avoid them). Try as I might, I have great difficulty imagining serious backlash to specifically; the kind of people who tend to get very angry about that — angry enough to cause a serious community disruption — are the same people who get very angry at artists using Patreons at all (and therefore wouldn't be in that position in the first place). This is just my own observation, of course.

Speaking of Kickstarter: We also have the option to place a moratorium on Kickstarter-style projects (as opposed to paying people for time spent, or actual work delivered, or just tipping them because you like their podcast/writing and want them to keep doing it). This would be because KS stuff is undeniably the most dangerous in terms of possible backlash, so there's nothing wrong with us seeing how the probably less risky stuff pans out first.

Funding SCP Articles:

I personally dislike but would accept this.

Patreons:

I STRONGLY OPPOSE any attempt to ban Patreons. Especially out of a desire to disallow SCPs being funded by then. This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Quite frankly I'm a strong enough believer in Patreon (given that it's the only crowdfund-type thing that actually successfully supports any authors or artists I've heard of and/or respect who aren't also ultra-famous — and supports /many/ of them, at that) that I would choose allowing Patreon over allowing any other kind of donation.

Where To Put Links?

My own personal line is that I don't want any links on any in-universe material, ever. Comment pages, okay (no spam). Author pages, for sure. Project pages, sure. Hub pages for a canon… okay, sure, fine. Nothing else. Period.

How To Qualify To Post A Donation Link?

I had the idea to treat this like an author page; if you qualify for an author page, you qualify for donation links. Any positively rated project page should separately qualify for donation links as well. Otherwise, you need to ask staff permission.

However, I'm also fine with Tuomey's much simpler suggestion: Author pages, author posts, and project pages only. That's very easy to understand, and all those except author pages will easily go away if people vote accordingly.

Community Input?

I think we should absolutely take this to the community for more extensive input before implementing it, so we can address common concerns if and when necessary. Not for an easily-gamed and potentially misleading community-wide vote, but we really, really should get a lot of wide input on this from the people who will largely actually be using it.

EDIT:

Get Paid For Anything Except Writing

I want to state for the record that nothing about "getting paid" is antithetical to collaborative writing projects, or television shows and movies wouldn't exist.

Additionally, at least some of the comments appear to exist in ignorance that a significant minority of significant SFF novels and short stories by major authors are in fact funded currently by Patreon.

The example that springs to mind immediately for me is multi-major-award-winning SFF author N. K. Jemisin.

Therefore, arguments on principle that it would be Bad for writing on this site to be funded by Patreon kind of baffle me. They imply it's Just Not Done and so it Shouldn't Be. Well, it is done, so let's argue from more solid ground. (Pure personal preference is fine, naturally.)

I think donation links should exist in exactly two pages: author pages, and product pages like art etc. I would like to avoid putting them in the discussion pages - it just becomes additional/clog boilerplate. If someone wants to donate, they can locate the author page.

For kinds of donations, as long as we avoid taking responsibility for the legitimacy of recipients, I think we're fine with standard tip jar/Patreon links. The one caveat here is that I think donors ought to state what their donations are going to in no uncertain terms, whether that be to support a particular project, or make rent that month.

For people who can make donation links, presence of an art page or author page ought to be a requirement. I'm not comfortable putting larger limits than this as that can become arbitrary very quickly. As long as donation links are not pushed aggressively, it should not be an issue.

That second bit is necessary because, for example, patreon can be set up to charge per work. So someone might get charged a few times in a week if someone posts multiple things. And they should definitely be made aware of that before handing over their details.

Common sense stuff, really.

I would also like to specify that people should only be allowed to acquire money for themselves; I don't want this turning into "donate money to [political party] if you liked my article" and I'm really just so incredibly not down for arguments over whether a particular charity is abusing their status as such.

If they donate the money to whatever once they have it that's their business, but it should not be advertised as such on the wiki.

I'm also in favour of keeping the donation links to author pages, author posts on articles/pages, and "project" pages like for a podcast or webcomic or whatever. Those are, after all, the places where people go if they like a particular author/project, so I doubt it will have too much of an affect on visibility.

Additionally, we should be clear that we will not be arbitrating for any multiperson project on the site and can't intervene if people feel the person holding the money embezzled it all or whatever. If four people get together to record a podcast and the guy holding the money blows it all on cocaine instead of a new microphone, that falls under caveat emptor.

We could say, "Please do not advertise Patreons on the wiki that use [X Payment Option]. Doing so will constitute a violation of the site rules." And if someone does, and users report them, we delete their link and treat them appropriately.

If that can be enforced, I'm fine with it.

Just wanted to second this. Different people use different websites and donation styles. Restricting it to PayPal tip jars is unnecessary when it’s already been established no one is on the hook for creator promises but said creator. If there’s a complaint, just tell the person that it’s not staff responsibility to police donation promises. There’s also a question of accessibility. While PayPal is available globally, it doesn’t usually work on vpns. So people in countries like China can’t access it if they’re using a vpn to unrestrict their internet access (ironically). Just letting people use PayPal, patreon, Venmo, Alipay, w/e ensures that the system is fair.

I mean, we may still need to look out for the occasional jackass trying to mooch off of, say, djkaktus' KatusKast by claiming to be him and setting up a tip jar, but that's a lot different from having to sit there and wonder if the paetron/kickstarter link isn't a scam of some kind.

Like, we don't need to go through each and every Patreon link. We just need to set the rules and let our users know we want to know about any violations. Our users are pretty good about telling us when someone's doing shit wrong.

I am HIGHLY AGAINST allowing links in comments. I would also restrict "If you like it, my wishlist is on my page" to one comment per item, Scp, tale, whatever, so as to avoid someone using the "You didn't say I couldn't tell people it was there, you just said no links!" arguments.

In terms of where things go, I would err on the side of author pages, because even if we went with the discussion page, spam policy, having it on the pages of dedicated authors means less spam and moneygrabbing.

(edited for clarity, hit the post button on my rough draft inadvertently. )

Type of Payment Methods:
I'm all for tip-jar links. Patreon I'd like to only applied to projects, like podcasts, etc. Something large scale that this payment method might better be suited for. Overall, however, I'm pretty neutral.

Where Links Can Be:
Eh, I am going to err on the side of project pages, and author pages. IMO, having those links on individual tale/SCP discussions looks fairly tacky and just not allowing them will all together avoid the "gimme all the money" spam.

Tip-jar links. These would be things like PayPal or Amazon wish-lists. These are basically "If you liked what I've written/drawn/made, you can show your appreciation this way."

I feel like this is a much safer option. With Patreon you set an expectation, mainly that there's more to come and the supporters are in some way 'owed' more than is currently there.

I believe a donation link could go under the author commentary post, with any spam or low-effort moneygrabbing being already under our spam/low-effort posting rules.

I'm fine with "tip jar" style donations, and I think in order to cut back spam it should be restricted to author pages. This also has the added benefit of ensuring only those serious about the site can make them- so that xX_D4RKBL4DE_Xx can't just join, spam some coldposts and post his gofundme on each one.

Current issues, to clarify them somewhat:

There are basically two kinds of donation links we're considering right now:

• Tip-jar links. These would be things like PayPal or Amazon wish-lists. These are basically "If you liked what I've written/drawn/made, you can show your appreciation this way."
• Patreon-style on-going campaigns. These are in the vein of "Send me on-going money to help me create content for you." These would be for on-going projects like podcasts, art, and the like. The question on this is what sort of projects we allow. Specifically, do we allow Patreons for "writing SCP articles"?

Next, we have the question of where people can have their links. Current options:

• User pages. This is the most uncontroversial. I think everyone agrees that if we have donation links, they're okay here.
• Project pages. Especially for Patreon links, these would help show people how they can support specific, on-going projects.
• Comments on tales, articles, etc. If we allow them on comments, I think we all agree we need to be very clear on limits to avoid spamming the forum with "give me money" links.

I think we're all pretty set on not allowing them anywhere else.

These are, as I see it, the main questions: Tip Jar vs. Patreon vs. Both, what sort of projects are okay if we allow Patreon, and where people can post them.

In this case, I am hoping that people don't have any monetary gain to have significant enough that it would be profitable for them to bribe staff in this manner; my opinion would change in the exceptionally rare occurrence that people are profiting enough that such support-money to cause legislation to go in their favor is a reasonable scheme.

Like Magnus said, the ability to bribe us already exists, even if it would require a PM first.

Like… You'd have to bribe MULTIPLE members of staff to get anything passed. Even if you bribe one to do something, like delete a skip, it still is tracked, and watched… like… What would anyone bribe us to do? I mean, I don't see anyone saying "Yeh, your skip can stay for fifty bucks."

My biggest, single largest, and probably the core concern is that I do not want any sort of monetary exchange, of any sort, to affect the writing and direction of SCP format entries to the site. This is explicitly items that are written and posted to 001 Entries, Series-1, Series-2, Series-3, Series-4, and SCP-Joke.¹

I don't actually think I mind if "donation links" are placed on Tale discussion pages (though only on the very first post if an author makes one), author pages, or on project pages² are much of an issue. I just do not, and staunchly refuse to directly support, any change that could possibly alter how people write SCPs. A lot of users already write safe tripe to collect upvotes, whether intentionally or not.³

I also mostly agree with Soulless's post on 18 Nov 2017, and Mann's post on 21 Nov 2017. I do support Duckman's suggestion to ask the greater userbase as posted on 19 Nov 2017, and suggest that we take advantage of thedeadlymoose's suggestion posted on 21 Nov 2017 to extend discussion for a week and to arrange opinion collection.

Frankly, I do agree with some murmuring sentiments that have been fluttering around with some staff that the amount of money that'll be exchanged is likely going to be low to nil. But the worry is less about money and payment as it is the fact that we write here for fun and out of a pure love for the site and setting, and money is a terrifying thing when put against art.

Also, bribeable staff is absolutely like… not something that will happen. It's a perfectly fine worry to have, and apprehension is absolutely warranted and welcomed. But DrMagnus' commentary is pretty accurate to how I feel. We are all subject to the same policies.

I may specifically, strenuously, and diametrically oppose donations links on the wiki, in basically any form, but there's no doubt in my mind that anyone is operating in bad faith here. Staff voted, and all of us will abide by the discussion, and policies put forth. None of us are staff for personal benefit (beyond my own personal benefit of the power trip of telling people use proper grammar, of course). All of us are going to enforce whatever policy we come to a consensus (or at least, grudging majority vote) on.

I'm working from privileged knowledge here, but I was around during the argument where this all started. Kal's opinion (in my eyes) was that staff have a conflict of interest, and will manipulate policy to personally benefit.

If the implication is that donation links = bribeable staff, that's got one major logic flaw: what's stopped us from now from being like "I'll ban someone/be a dick on purpose for 20$ via paypal, right now." Or, in the opposite example, a user contacting a staff member and being like "Hey, I'll donate 50$ to your [Page] if you get [user] banned" at any point in the wiki's history?

This isn't a conflict of interest, beyond the common conflict of interest of being staff, and writing for the wiki in general. It's not a conflict of interest for me to annoy people with -J's as a staff member, it's not a conflict of interest to have a tip jar as a staff member. Neither will be subject to special treatment.

Staff are subject to the same policies that all users are. I see no reason to implement some kind of "accountability page" at this point, beyond what we already have.

I've just now brought myself up to speed on this donation links thing. I hope to see staff exclude themselves from putting up donation links on their own work, or some sort of workaround in whatever policy you guys adopt that acknowledges the big-ass pile of conflict of interest you're all about to step into

What do we think of this? I'm not sure what the conflicts of interest would be but I can see them becoming possible if we're allowing ourselves to be given money by outside sources. Do we want to create some kind of accountability index, logging any gifts we receive, or do we not think that allowing for people to receive donations to be an issue? Maybe routing them through a centralized source?

One are Patreon-style "pay to support this ongoing project" links. These would be the sort of things that would more likely go up on Podcast/Art/Project pages, and they would exist as an incentive to try and drive further content of the same kind. These are the ones where I really want to keep away from writing SCPs/Tales for the reasons I mentioned up-thread.

The other are tip jar style links like Paypal or Amazon Wishlists. These would mostly go up on user pages, and would be more along the lines of "I really enjoyed your stuff, here's some money/gift for writing it." These might help push the author to write more, but are mostly there to show appreciation for something that already exists. These are the ones where I don't mind existing for writing site-stuff (and I would in fact encourage it).

I'm in favor of both, though I'm slightly more leery of the first.

That said…

I'm mostly thinking in terms of Patreon projects. I wouldn't mind, say, PayPal or Amazon Wishlists on an author page as tips for liking an author's writing.

The reason I'm a little leery of Patreon-style projects for stuff on the site is two-fold. One, the articles and tales are the backbone of the site. We might want to leave the main part of our site out of it until we see how it works for the non-article/tale projects.

Second, the podcasts, art and so forth largely live off of site. That is, they're hosted here too, but they also live on other hosting services or websites like Deviantart and so on. It gives it a bit more separation.

Maybe allow Patreon-style campaigns for the projects now, and if the site responds well to it without problems, then see about letting people try it for articles/tales?

If no one else needs any extra time, though, please disregard this request.

The dust having settled a bit, I feel the points Soulless has provided here are fairly well balanced and a good outline to what a functional policy on the matter could look like.

With respect to the two points at the end:

• I feel that if we are allowing donation links on author pages, and the author wants to mention what their per word commission bonus is, that is fine. I feel the creation of an entirely separate page for the sole purpose of advertising one's paid commission service, is a little dubious however.
• So long as the person is not being overly disruptive or spamming these links, I think the matter will not be too much of an issue. We already see people get shot down on the site and in the IRC pretty quickly when they flood links to their stuff, I'm going to guess that people will have even less tolerance for such link floods if they are for donation link pages.

On commissions and advertising, I think we should ask that authors place minimal focus on these links, the content should come before the comment. But I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the idea of a writer creating a piece they were commissioned to do. As long as the content staying up on the site is decided through normal order and not any kind of pay-for-vote scheme but I don't foresee that being an issue, at least not in the immediate or near future.

With regards to plugging, I think there's usually a degree of self correction when people plug anything on the wiki because you do get diminished returns. Again, as long as they're placing their content over their comments we should be in good shape.

As Sly said I think we should hammer out our basic parameters here and present some sort of poll or feedback through the forums and other channels.

I would like to see what people have to say for a content creator's advertisement of their work- how often should a content creator be allowed to plug pages which either contain or link to donations links?

Well, we already discourage people from being spammy with plugging new works on the mainsite, so why not limit the amount of plugging of your works with donation links to a similar rate? You spam your new article, you get told to knock it off, you spam donation plugging, you get told to knock it off, perhaps even more strictly if needed.

edited to add: If there were concerns about what people were linking to for donations, such as graphic/pornographic content, Patreon has now become much more strict with graphic material on their website.

• If people want to give money to content creators, we should have no right to prevent them or unnecessarily impede this process. Our goals as staff, now that we have decided that we support the notion, is to prevent behaviors that may decrease the quality of user experience on the site.
• I support all donation links to all content creators, prose included. I only support this as a single author comment on prose works, a link on the page itself for artwork, the author page of an author, and other pages that only receive updates such as kaktuscast. We more or less generate the author comment as a way for the author to gain their commentary and author commentary will also be where they should post a link to donations if they like. I feel very strongly that donation links should not occur on a tale/article itself, ever.
• Staff should have the right to ask an author to remove their links, and should remove links upon the author being banned, if the author is spammy, abusive, or similar.
• A disclaimer regarding the policy around this should note that the staff are not responsible for the monetary transactions that occur, and that all monetary disputes should be made through the channels in which the monetary exchange occurred.
• Staff should keep a close eye on how this affects the culture of the site in general as a result. I am all for paying the creators here, but if this takes a turn to a culture we do not wish to foster, we should be open to rescinding this.
• Any content creator that is seen as abusing the system, e.g. spamming posts, or excessively plugging their own stuff with donation links, should be barred from having their donation links on the site.

Things I disagree with that have come up:(If you disagree with my reasoning please respond!)

• I disagree with the concept of paid projects by group hubs, canons, etc. This would fall into, say, kickstarter campaigns. (note: Now that I think of it, I would support this exclusively as a way of raising money to then give out as prize rewards for contests. This would give us real feedback as well to know what our userbase wants to see as contests and potentially drum up quality writers for the site if we are capable of paying professional rates for contests. This I plan to bring up at a much later date once enough time has passed to see how donation links affect the site.)
• I disagree that we should limit who gets to throw a donation link up- if a user spams a donation link, they are simply abusing the community and should be removed under existing rules. If a user's first article is a smash hit and they wish to receive support for it, they should be allowed to. If someone posts mediocre work, no one is going to throw their money towards it.

Things that I want more opinions on:

• I would like to see what people have to say for solicitations of commissions on the site: i.e. an artist posts their paid commissions page on the site, or a writer advertises their per-word paid commission on their author page.
• I would like to see what people have to say for a content creator's advertisement of their work- how often should a content creator be allowed to plug pages which either contain or link to donations links?

<djkaktus>: I don't have all to much to say about it except that I'm encouraged that staff has seen fit to continue to encourage content creation on the wiki. I think there's something being misconstrued here, however. Encouraging content creation by allowing contributors to solicit donations is not the same as outright paying for it. I think I can safely assume that there aren't many people who have accepted more donations that I have for work done for this
<djkaktus>: community, specifically for the podcast, and I can tell you now that even with the exposure I've gotten those donations have never been considerable enough to warrant concern. In an effort to provide some transparency, in the time since I've launched djkakt.us (and had the option for donations available on that site which is linked directly to this wiki in several places) I've only just barely made enough to cover the hosting costs for six months. While
<djkaktus>: that's definitely a boon and something that has made the process much easier, I can assure you it's not exactly been a windfall.
<djkaktus>: More coming, one moment.
<djkaktus>: As for the issue of the wiki and financial liability, I can't say I know of any websites that assume financial liability due to links posted on that site. YouTube isn't responsible for donations that viewers make to creators patreons, nor is deviantart or any other mainstream creation platform. The issue of responsibility lies directly on the shoulders of those soliciting the donations, the service they are using to solicit those donations, and the
<djkaktus>: donater. If, in the case of a user promising to write an article in exchange for a donation and that article then being deleted, I fail to see how the wiki would be in any way liable. The issue of legal action is no more an issue here than it is with any other frivolous thing someone might want to sue us for. I should note, as well, that since the wiki is not itself a legal entity, the burden of legal action would likely fall on wikidot as the web host,
<djkaktus>: and I cannot see a situation where wikidot would do anything but laugh at the prospect of somebody trying to sue them because they weren't happy about a donation made on a completely different platform.
<djkaktus>: One more, hang on.
<djkaktus>: Lastly, anyone saying "I don't think the wiki is in a position to handle money" is absolutely in the right. But it doesn't make a difference because the wiki wouldn't be handling money themselves. Allowing a link is not the same as collecting donations and then distributing them yourselves. Were that the case, this would be a much different issue, but donations made through (in my case) Square, or through Patreon or whatever else are solely the
<djkaktus>: responsibility of those entities, and not this one. Wikidot wouldn't have any reason to come down on us because somebody was mad about a donation, since our use of, again, donation links doesn't violate their terms of service in any way. Nor would it, because again, they're just links. They're not the platform themselves. Equating the two is sort of shitty because it creates a level of panic about the issue that disencourages discourse and creates a
<djkaktus>: strawman that doesn't need to be made. Finally, anyone here who thinks that this platform will somehow magically turn into a way for authors to game the system for money is kidding themselves. If someone wants to write and make money, they're not going to go seek out a b-list internet horror website and do it there, soliciting donations through a third party. They'd do it any number of other ways, like self publishing, sponsored blogs, etc. And that's even
<djkaktus>: imagining that the people who would want to do it anyway are halfway decent writers, which, while hilarious to think about, is almost certainly not the case.
<djkaktus>: Tl;dr: glad you're all making the right choice here, but please don't equate allowing links to donations pages with actually collecting donations yourself.
<djkaktus>: That's all.

• Restricting use. No minors, new users, or people without a certain number of successful articles not including their author page. I also think it would be a good idea to ensure someone is actually working on a project in some way before donations could be accepted. Like, have the first episode of a podcast out to prove you are actually serious about it.
• Restricting the donation services that are allowed. Nothing sketchy, untested, or niche.
• Only permitting donation prompts on author pages and maybe hubs for the bigger canons.
• Zero leniency if someone breaks/disobeys whatever rules are eventually set. When money is involved, I don't think there should be second chances unless someone can prove that it was a mistake.
• Donations should only be solicited for bigger media projects and not just the normal articles that whatever rando happens to get +1's on. This includes videos, games, podcasts, music, art, and apparel.
• I think users should prove that they have some experience handling donations. Idk if there is like an account length measurement on things like Patreon, but we shouldn't allow overzealous users to have impossible expectations.
• Not making a big deal out of this. No "donations are now allowed!" notice on the front page of the wiki. Make a guide and codify the rules, but no fanfare.

The likelihood is that this discussion will decide to reward certain kinds of content and not others. If I contribute to that discussion then I would be effectively arguing and voting to reward myself and block out others (assuming things go in a direction that would reward me).

There's no way that doesn't look improper. Even if it's just the appearance of impropriety it's still serious to me and could gravely undermine user confidence in our decision making process.

Why not? Seriously, what you are saying here is that the people who made the site, the people who do all the stuff that any projects are based on, are NOT worth paying. That, if someone does somethign else, they can get paid, but heaven forbid a writer be allowed to say :Hey, if you liked it, feel free to help me out."

I'm not saying that established authors/the site creators/contributors aren't worth paying. Personally, I feel that a lot of people should be compensated for all the good work they do. I'm not against the principle of helping authors out, I'm raising concern over potential issues that can arise out of implementing a system like this by other users that don't view it as a nice bonus on the side, but instead aim it as their main goal for writing at all. Keep in mind that before the implementation even happens this is all speculation anyway, and more of a feeling I have instead of saying 'yes' or 'no'.

Or maybe I'm just seeing this differently because I don't expect anyone to actually donate all that much. If people have a way to get a couple extra bucks, cool… right?

If that's the case, sure! I'm just concerned about the issues that will arise if it blows out of proportion.

Seriously, what you are saying here is that the people who made the site, the people who do all the stuff that any projects are based on, are NOT worth paying.

That is not what I'm saying. Nowhere have I said that authors are not "worth" paying, and I'm frankly a little offended that you're putting words in my mouth like that; especially inflammatory language like that.

What I am saying, is this website has not, nor has ever been about getting paid or compensated for writing these stories and tales.

Of course there's a point. The point is to allow SCP-Related content creators to be compensated for that content, if people wish.

I don't see any point in being "paid" or "tipped" to write for the wiki. My viewpoint is obviously not the same as yours, but in my eyes if compensation is a factor in an author's writing for this website, then they're doing this for the wrong reasons.

Or maybe I'm just seeing this differently because I don't expect anyone to actually donate all that much. If people have a way to get a couple extra bucks, cool… right?

If we are not allowing writers to put a patreon on thier author page, or whatever else, then I am against this idea. there is no point to allowing this, if we're not allowing it for all the creations.

No one si saying it should be made a paid model. We're saying, if someone feels like donating, they can. That's not forcing people to pay. We're giving the option for writers to make something.

I feel like it's kind of bs that someone could get ask for moneys to make a game about 029, but I can't put up a donation button on my own author page for having written it.

The purpose of this website, in my eyes, is to be a collaborative writing project.

It's never been a paid model, nor should it be. That's kinda antithetical to the whole "collaborative writing project" thing.

Art, side projects, other works, whatever.

If you're writing for the wiki, you're writing for the wiki, not for profit. If you'd prefer to be paid for your work, you're free to do it. There's a buttload of SF/Horror publications. You can even use the foundation universe, it's all CC-BY-SA.

It's like the old adage "You don't have to go home ,but you can't stay here."

You don't have to not get paid, but you can't do it here. (For writing SCPs or Tales)

It seems absurd that the only people who shouldn't be able to ask for donations on a writing website are writers.

I'm not sure if being able to call yourself a proper 'writer' is the point. I think the concern is that donation links on mainsite articles will change the general atmosphere of the site from a creative writing project, where people contribute because they love the setting and community, to a site where the goal of contributing can be something else than a creative outlet.

If people REALLY want to get paid for writing fiction, they can do like everyone else does and get their work vetted through a magazine or publication.

If people REALLY want to get paid for drawing art, they can do like everyone else does and get commissions through Tumblr or Deviantart.

If people REALLY want to get paid for making podcasts, they can do like everyone else does and team up with sponsorships from Audible or Lootcrate.

It seems absurd that the only people who shouldn't be able to ask for donations on a writing website are writers.

I don't want any donation links to authors or such. If people REALLY want to get paid for writing fiction, they can do like everyone else does and get their work vetted through a magazine or publication. The SCP Wiki should not become an ezpz shortcut for weird fiction writers to get views and donations.

I agree with this sentiment as well. Projects like podcasts and art pages would be the place for donation links, not main site articles. Say an article that is well established and has received donations. Then, it falls into deletion range. Someone rewrites it, and it thrives because of it. What if the re-writer and the original author start a feud about the recipient of these donations?

More importantly, I feel like the donation links might endanger creativity in favor of profit for some users.

EDIT: Thought of something else. If non-users know that there's the potential monetary gain, it's possible that users join the site with the sole purpose of getting paid. I'm already getting flash-forwards of the ridiculous influx of drafts we'd have to wade through along with all the staff efforts that brings. Along with this practical concern, I'm just concerned risking our creative integrity. Not staff, mind you, a portion of users.