Message: 8 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:59:22 +0200 From: GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
Hoi, This issue has been decided. Seniority is not fair either; there are hundreds if not thousands of users that have done no or only a few edits and I would not consider it fair when a person with say over 10.000 edits should have to defer to these typically inactive users.
1. Yes, it's not fair, but this is the truth on wikimedia project that ones have to admit. Imagine if, all wikimedia sites has a single user login since when it is first established, the one who first register will own that username for all wikimedia sites.
2. The person with less edits, doesn't mean that they are less active than the one with more edits. And according to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_count,
``Edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value of a user's contributions to the Wikipedia project.''
What if, some users have less edits count, * since they deliberately edit, preview, edit, and preview the articles, over and over, before submitting the deliberated versions to wikimedia sites. * Some users edit, edit and edit the articles in their offline storage, over and over, before submitting the only final versions to wikimedia sites.
While some users have more edits count, * since they often submit so many changes, without previewing it first, and have to correct the undeliberated edit, over and over. * Some users often submit so many minor changes, over and over, rather than accumulate the changes resulting in fewer edits count. * Some users do so many robot routines by themselves, rather than letting the real robot to do those tasks. * Some users often take part in many edit wars. * Some users often take part in many arguments in many talk pages.
What if, the users with less edits count, try to increase their edits count to take back the status of primary account. What if, they decide to change their habit of editing, to increase the edits count, * by submitting many edits without deliberated preview, * by splitting the accumulated changes into many minor edits, and submit them separately, * by stopping their robots, and do those robot routines by themselves, * by joining edit wars.
3. According to 2) above, I think, the better measurement of activeness is to measure the time between the first edit and the last edit of that username. The formula will look like this,
activeness = last edit time - first edit time
A choice has been made and as always, there will be people that will find an un-justice. There were many discussions and a choice was made. It is not good to revisit things continuously, it is good to finish things so that there is no point to it any more.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/12/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
According to the conflict resolution process, that the account with most edits is selected as a primary account for that username, this may sound reasonable for the username that is owned by the same person on all wikimedia sites.
But the problem will come when the same username on those wikimedia sites is owned by different person and they are actively in used. The active account that has registered first (seniority rule) should rather be considered the primary account. Since, I think the person who register first should own that username on the unified wikimedia sites.
Imagine, what if the wikimedia sites have been unified ever since the sites are first established long time ago (that their accounts have never been separated), the person who register first will own that username on all of the wikimedia sites. The person who come after will be unable to use the registered username, and have to choose their alternate username. This logic should also apply on current wikimedia sites, after it have been unified.