This is a hot one! Both sides have a good argument. Let’s sum them up, as I see it:

The YES case: (1) Both writers and readers are naturally curious to read the winning entries; writers, because they like to see what special qualities (if any) the winners possessed that their contributions lacked; readers, because they just like to read good literature. (2) The reputation of the Contest is at stake if the winners are kept under wraps. For all we know, the judge might be (a) an idiot, ( a nepotist, (c) a crook.

The NO case: Authors are underpaid and unappreciated. Publishing winning entries limits an author’s opportunity to obtain the best possible financial returns as well as the greatest amount of kudos. Most publishers and most writing contests insist that submissions be unpublished. Once a work is published, it’s effectively no longer a commercial proposition. An author still wants to sell his published work, but, generally speaking, he can’t find any takers.

As I said, I can see merit in both arguments. What do you think?