On Feb 16, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Rich Holton wrote:
--- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
How about a "Special:Active Pages" that would list the top 'n' most
active pages -- where active would be defined as number of edits over a
period of time, where adjacent edits by the same user are treated as
one edit.
Would this help in the sort of situation you're referring to? Or is
edit activity not a good measure?
-Rich Holton
(en.wikipedia:User:Rholton)
I don't have a large enough sample size, but my experience - which is
anecdotal - doesn't seem to confirm this. Very often "active" editing
pages are ones that are going very well - because contributors are
working with each others edits. Since the person reverting knows both
what they are reverting and why, it seems reasonable to ask them to
spend a few seconds to put in something like [[Category:Revert
Test/Graphitti]] or [[Category:Revert Content Conflict]] as part of
doing the reversion, particularly one for [[Category:3RR Limit
Reached]]. We already have categories for NPOV disputes and so on, so
all this proposal amounts to is:
1. Tightening the number of reverts to reversion by content, not by
user/article-day, to three in each direction.
2. Creating categories for reversion.
3. Mandating their use.
4. Publicizing them so that editors interested in helping an article
reach consensus and avoid an edit war have a place to look.
This removes the incentive to mobocracy, makes the notification system
simpler, and halts revert wars in their tracks relatively quickly. Its
intent is to reduce the amount of sturm and drang associated with such
conflicts.