Layer 7: Contribution Rubric Framework

What this means

This Layer defines what counts as "contribution" on OLN and how that contribution is measured in Credits. It's probably the most culturally important section of the entire Constitution, because it determines whose work is valued and how.

The core commitments:

• All meaningful labor is recognized. Canon writers, artists, curators, moderators, coders, translators, governance participants — all get Credits. Maintenance work is as real as creative work.
• Impact matters. An article that serves 10,000 readers is worth more than one that serves 10, even if the initial work was similar.
• Quality is judged twice. An algorithm provides a baseline; human peer review verifies or adjusts.
• Franchises tune the weights; the Network sets the categories. Local cultures decide what they value most, within shared structural norms.
• Gaming the system is defended against at multiple layers. Reciprocity detection, volume-quality balance, signal weight caps, citation analysis, and human review all work together.

Formal Text

Article I: The Six Contribution Categories

All contribution on OLN falls into one of six Network-defined categories. Franchise rubrics may adjust weights within these categories but may not exclude any category.

1.1 Canon Contribution — lore, stories, characters, worldbuilding, canonical events, setting details. Sub-types: primary canon (new material), canon extension (building on existing), canon refinement (corrections and clarifications).

1.2 Visual and Media Contribution — illustrations, maps, diagrams, music, audio, video, interactive media. Sub-types: original works, adaptations, reference materials, cover art and branding.

1.3 Curation and Editing — organization, consistency maintenance, cross-referencing, canon policing, archival work, taxonomy. Sub-types: structural curation, content curation, consistency enforcement.

1.4 Community Contribution — reviews, feedback, discussion, mentorship of new contributors, moderation, conflict resolution. Sub-types: substantive review, mentorship, moderation, social stewardship.

1.5 Technical Contribution — platform code, tools, integrations, bug fixes, infrastructure, APIs. Sub-types: platform core, Franchise-specific tools, integrations, bug reports and fixes, technical documentation.

1.6 Meta Contribution — governance participation, Constitution work, platform documentation, translation, accessibility, cross-Franchise coordination. Sub-types: governance labor, documentation, translation, accessibility improvements.

Article II: Credit Valuation

2.1 Base Credits. Awarded at publication/lock-in based on the contribution's craft and completeness. Base values reflect labor, skill, and inherent quality.

2.2 Impact Credits. Accrued over time based on measurable downstream effects:

• Traffic, views, and reader engagement (canon, visual, exposition content)
• Citations by other contributions (canonical load-bearing)
• Retention in canon (not superseded or contradicted)
• Derivative works created by others (media, canon extensions)
• Prevented incidents (for moderation)
• Sustained tool usage (for technical contributions)
• Resolution success rates (for community and conflict-resolution work)

2.3 Impact Credits accrue indefinitely. A contribution from years past that remains load-bearing continues to generate Impact Credits. This prevents the system from becoming purely recency-biased.

2.4 Net value. Total Credit value of a contribution = Base Credits + cumulative Impact Credits.

2.5 Provisional vs. final. Credits are provisional at contribution time and final after the 30-day peer review window unless flagged for review.

Article III: The Signal-and-Review Pipeline

Every contribution passes through two stages of evaluation.

3.1 Stage 1: Algorithmic Signal.

• Category-specific signal definitions produce a provisional Credit value
• Provisional Credits are visible immediately
• Signals include: upvotes, citations, retention, traffic, usage, structural impact, resolution success
• Signal weights are Franchise-set within Network-defined ranges

3.2 Stage 2: Peer Review Verification.

• Team members may flag any contribution for review within 30 days of publication
• Review may:
  • Ratify: confirm provisional Credit value
  • Elevate: grant Credits beyond what the signal suggested (when true quality was undervalued)
  • Reduce: reduce Credits when signal over-rewarded the contribution
• Review requires written justification, which becomes public record
• Reviewed contributions are marked "Verified" in the ledger
• Unreviewed contributions lock in at provisional value after 30 days

3.3 Review quorum for high-value adjustments. Any peer review that adjusts Credits by more than 500 from the provisional value requires two Team member signatures rather than one. This prevents individual Team members from unilaterally kingmaking or score-settling.

3.4 Appeals. Contributors who disagree with a review adjustment may appeal to the Arbiters. Appeal outcomes are public record and inform future review calibration.

Article IV: Network Guardrails on Franchise Weights

4.1 Franchises tune category weights within bands set by the Network.

4.2 Category weight floor: no category may be weighted below 5% of total available Credits in that Franchise.

4.3 Category weight ceiling: no category may be weighted above 40% of total available Credits in that Franchise.

4.4 Weight changes require Franchise Team vote and take effect at the start of the next quarter, preventing mid-period gaming.

4.5 Current Franchise weights and their version history are publicly visible.

Article V: Signal Weight Scaling

5.1 Signal weight from a contributor whose signal is evaluating another contribution scales with the signaler's Power, with a hard cap.

5.2 Maximum signal weight: 3× the weight of a new-account signal. This cap kicks in well before any contributor reaches high Power, meaning established contributors do not drown out new voices.

5.3 Progression is logarithmic; most contributors with meaningful history sit at 2×–2.5× signal weight.

5.4 Sock-puppet and coordinated-inauthentic-behavior signals are discounted to 0 upon detection.

Article VI: Anti-Gaming Provisions

6.1 Reciprocity detection. Mutual upvoting rings and coordinated citation networks are algorithmically detected. Signals from detected reciprocal networks are progressively discounted. Affected accounts are publicly notified that their signal weight is being reduced.

6.2 Volume-quality balance. Credits per contribution taper as volume increases within a time window, within the same category. This is within-category only; high-volume moderators are not penalized relative to high-volume writers.

6.3 Citation weighting. Signal weight from established contributors is worth more than from new accounts (subject to the 3× cap), preventing sock-puppet farming.

6.4 Review quorum. See Article III.3.

6.5 Appeals path. See Article III.4.

6.6 Public anti-gaming health report. A monthly report is published showing detection rates, appeals patterns, and systemic issues. Anti-gaming systems operate transparently, not in secret.

6.7 Impact metrics anti-gaming.

• Organic vs. inorganic traffic is distinguished; inorganic traffic does not generate Impact Credits
• Citation network analysis applies the same reciprocity detection as upvoting
• Retention is weighted by genuine use, not mere absence of deletion

Article VII: Rubric Stability

7.1 The initial rubric is considered durable from launch. Pre-ratification public comment is the primary window for shaping it.

7.2 Post-ratification, the Network-level rubric (categories, bands, signal pipeline) may be amended only through the Constitutional amendment process for Amendable clauses (Layer 1 Article II).

7.3 Franchise-level weight tuning within the 5%–40% bands follows Franchise amendment processes and is not a Constitutional matter.

Article VIII: Content-Type Handling

8.1 Contribution Credits are affected by content attributes (Layer 9):

• Fact-grounded content is eligible for full Credit value
• Explicitly non-factual content (interpretation, speculation, alternate canon) is eligible for Credit value appropriate to its category, without Fact-grounding bonuses
• Disputed content's Credits are paused during dispute resolution and activate (retroactively or prospectively, per outcome) upon resolution

8.2 Home content generates Credits based on Impact metrics, per Article II.

8.3 Home-to-Commons promotion (Layer 9) triggers a one-time Commons Credit award sized to the contribution's value in Commons context.

Article IX: Ledger Requirements

9.1 Every Credit award, adjustment, appeal, and revocation is recorded in the public ledger with:

• Contributor account
• Contribution reference
• Category and sub-category
• Base and Impact components
• Signal and review history
• Any adjustments with justifications

9.2 Ledger entries are immutable; corrections are new entries referencing originals.

9.3 Contributors may export their own Credit history at any time.