How does the ability to pay indicate ability to make worthwhile contributions? Or, how does inability/unwillingness to pay or prove yourself in some other way relate to an inability to make worthwhile contributions? (quality of posts, comments, etc)

>How does the ability to pay indicate ability to make worthwhile contributions?

If you can pay something that's related to the niche, it shows you have expertise in the niche.

For example, if you can pay $100/month for a business forum, than that shows you are at least somewhat serious and interested in business, and more likely, you are already successful at it.

If you can pay via open source contributions to the OS community, and that's a requirement for a software community, it shows at least you can code decently.

It doesn't have to be a "Do X" type of test either, it can just be an interview to hear their experience, their attitude, etc..

>Or, how does inability/unwillingness to pay or prove yourself in some other way relate to an inability to make worthwhile contributions?

You design a test to filter out people that you don't want in your community. If people fail that test, then it should already signal an inability to make worthwhile contributions. It might give false negatives for users that would have been good, but the test should not give too many false negatives.

It is more a psychological effect, when you need to prove yourself before entering a community you tend to appreciate it more, and (in theory) care more about the community. It will be interesting to see if this really holds in practice.

I've been apart of some small, free, private communities that have had similar problems. It's just less noticeable because it's easier for mods to keep a handle on it in smaller numbers.