In a message dated 3/17/2008 11:32:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
In practice "admin" is as close to an approximation of "long standing wikipedian" that can be done with little use of server resources,>>
----------------------
False. We have histories that will show who is long-standing and who is not. The admin bit has nothing to do with establishing whether someone is long-standing or not.
W.J.
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
On 17/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/17/2008 11:32:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
In practice "admin" is as close to an approximation of "long standing wikipedian" that can be done with little use of server resources,>>
False. We have histories that will show who is long-standing and who is not. The admin bit has nothing to do with establishing whether someone is long-standing or not.
If you want this not to be implemented by this plan, you probably need to convince Tim Starling. As far as he's concerned, it's a suitable group to use as involuntary guinea pigs.
- d.
On 17/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/17/2008 11:32:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
In practice "admin" is as close to an approximation of "long standing wikipedian" that can be done with little use of server resources,>>
False. We have histories that will show who is long-standing and who is not. The admin bit has nothing to do with establishing whether someone is long-standing or not.
W.J.
Try thinking about how the database is structured. Compare the "list all admins" query with "list all editors with at least X months experience and Y edits" query. Which one do you think will take up more resources?