If the editing metrics are still up, could this a reflect a shift in the type of user to coordinated offsite editing. Judging by the huge amount of interest in a certain obscure IdeaLab proposal, we could be looking at a new editing paradigm.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case dancase@frontiernet.net wrote:
Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last year.
Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly,
although I
rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might reflect
the
oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize do the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so to speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion
amongst
themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to care
who
care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a
greater
proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote.
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap