Right on. I detect ageism supplementing the recentism.
But seriously folks, if fraud were the issue then confirmed identify would overcome the problem. The number-of-recent-edits criterion has two effects that bother me.
1. It effectively puts the vote firmly in the hands of producers not consumers. 2. It effectively discriminates against those with RSI or who are otherwise impaired
The first phenomenon is basic. We know damned lilttle about our users and often seem to care less. Perhaps having a little more representation would tilt toward responsiveness to the user base. As important as editors are, I can see at the project level how their interests just don't seem very responsive to users I have been appalled at some of the displays of attitude toward users ("imbeciles" etc.) The default set up of our wikis limits the ability of many with content knowledge or enthusiasm to contribute in any satisfying way. To entrench those who have encouraged keeping projects as sandboxes they share with the like-minded seems very pernicious to Wikimedia as a movement. I think the Bolsheviks need to have less influence.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/7/31 Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com:
For me, the analogy is simple: just because you get a driver's license
once
doesn't entitle you to drive for the rest of your life.
Unless you actively do something wrong and get disqualified, yes it does. The analogy works for not letting banned editors vote, it doesn't work for not letting lapsed editors vote. (And there is the obvious flaw from the fact that we don't require people to take a test to edit.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l