User blog comment:MisterWoodhouse/Introducing Editor Rewards/@comment-38078079-20190901080912

I also have some concerns.

I think sometimes rewards can work great; I used to admin on a forum with 'levels/titles', and they were reasonably set, so everyone had a chance to obtain one with enough substantial posts, and it used to encourage people really well to participate on the forum and engage in discussion. I've seen other systems like that, but I think they work well as everyone stands a chance and no one feels left out; if you want x reward, you only have to do y action, and you feel motivated.

Here it sounds like just four people every month, one from each general group?

I can see it breeding resentment and demotivating people. I know on one wiki, I try to contribute every day and make many smaller edits and usually one or two big edits, and if I saw people month after month getting rewarded for doing the same amount of work - or less work - than me -? I'd be kind of annoyed. Likewise, if someone did a lot of work, like 50k characters a day and multiple entire articles every single day and an enormous amount of work. . . how many of us can ever compete with that or catch up to that? We know outright we'll never be getting a reward, so why aim for that?

I could understand maybe a "best wiki of the month", judged on some sort of scale so smaller wikis don't miss out, and then maybe rewarding all editors active that month, or just the top contributing editors on that wiki, but. . . just one person out of what I think it probably thousands - if not millions - of users? It kind of sits with me wrong, and I also doubt that a person can manually go through every single editor to check what they've done (and I don't trust automation).