The FCFS is as unfair as a system determined by numbers. It is grossly
You said, FCFS is as unfair as the system determined by "number of
unfair in not recognising the efforts of people who
came later but did a
genuine lot of work. It is also likely to give the users of the English
language Wikipedia an edge. When SUL has been implemented things will revert
to the natural state of play and indeed that is FCFS but you cannot state
that it is unfair at that time because nobody else will be able to claim
But before SUL, one can claim the account?
And to be able to claim the account is related to the fairness in what way?
Could you please explain me?
Please accept that any system has weaknesses, that every system is unfair
and that every system will have people that hate it.
So, this is the point that the word "fair" or "unfair" should not be
taken here, since every system is unfair.
And let's select the most neutral system (regardless of fairness),
that is, FCFS.
Also, please accept that FCFS has weakness and unfairness, and that
every system is unfair, so, the "fairness" should not be taken here.
Talking about fairness will never have conclusion. So, let's use the
most neutral system, by not concerning fairness.
BTW: Could you please point me to the archive where I can read the
discussion about this in the very past?
I have tried to search wikitech-l archive, but that's not help.
On 10/15/07, Anon Sricharoenchai <anon.hui(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Message: 1
> 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
> 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
> alternative approach that does justice to
the efforts involved. It is
> perfect but it is the best we have.
> The fact that someone has done edits over a longer time is not fair
.. 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
> > and
> > > I would not consider it fair when a person with say over 10.000
> > 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
> > since when it is first established,
the one who first register will
> > that
> > username for all wikimedia sites.
> > 2. The person with less edits, doesn't mean that they are less active
> > 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
> > 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
> > and
> > have to correct the undeliberated edit, over and over.
> > * Some users often submit so many minor changes, over and over,
> > 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
> > count
> > to take back the status of primary account.
> > What if, they decide to change their habit of editing, to increase
> > 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
> > * by joining edit wars.
> > 3. According to 2) above, I think, the better measurement of
> 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
Wikitech-l mailing list