Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:14:21 +0200
From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
Good points. I said it, it is not fair but as you do not provide a solution
that is more fair, there is no real alternative. Even though everyone
acknowledges that edit count is not really that special, we do not have an
alternative approach that does justice to the efforts involved. It is not
perfect but it is the best we have.
The fact that someone has done edits over a longer time is not fair either
.. So I did one edit in 2003 and 2007 and you have 20.000 edits ...
But this is at least a bridge between 2 approaches,
* first come first served (FCFS), and
* active edit estimation
While the edits count only estimate active edit.
However, I think the view of "fair" or "not fair" shouldn't be
* The FCFS is the middle ground, most neutral appraoch, which is
moderately or dispassionately acceptable to everyone.
* Regardless of whichever approach is used for primary account selection,
however, when the unify process finish, the account system for new
users, thereafter, will still go on with FCFS approach. The
unfairness of FCFS is still going on, thereafter, but everyone can
On 10/14/07, Anon Sricharoenchai <anon.hui(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Message: 8
> > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:59:22 +0200
> > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)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
> > I would not consider it fair when a person with say over 10.000 edits
> > have to defer to these typically inactive users.
> 1. Yes, it's not fair, but this is the truth on wikimedia project that
> 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
> username for all wikimedia sites.
> 2. The person with less edits, doesn't mean that they are less active than
> one with more edits. And according to,
> ``Edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value of a user's
> to the Wikipedia project.''
> What if, some users have less edits count,
> * since they deliberately edit, preview, edit, and preview the
> over and over, before submitting the deliberated versions to
> * Some users edit, edit and edit the articles in their offline storage,
> and over, before submitting the only final versions to wikimedia
> While some users have more edits count,
> * since they often submit so many changes, without previewing it first,
> have to correct the undeliberated edit, over and over.
> * Some users often submit so many minor changes, over and over, rather
> accumulate the changes resulting in fewer edits count.
> * Some users do so many robot routines by themselves, rather than
> 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
> 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
> 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
> measure the time between the first edit and the last edit of that
> The formula will look like this,
> activeness = last edit time - first edit time