[WikiEN-l] RfAs (was: Re: Verifiability equating to notability)

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Thu, 4 May 2006 20:36:57 +0200, you wrote:

>I agree that edit counts are *relatively* meaningless, but people use
>them anyway. The reason I support formalising them as a requirement,
>is to prevent people citing lack of edit counts for increasingly high
>limits.  Once we fix that 1000 edits is enough to be an admin, "not
>enough edits" will cease to be a reasonable reason to oppose a person
>with 2000, for instance.

Indeed.  And it will deter those who self-nominate after their third
edit.  Just as with notability criteria we can, by consensus,
de-emphasise those things which some have thought significant but
others have sown are not.  A low edit count number will make it plain
that edit counts are indeed meaningless.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG