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

[julieharding1 at charter.net]

---- Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote: 
> On Thu, 4 May 2006 20:36:57 +0200, you wrote:
> You are causing competition and taking away from the meaning of wikipedia!
Forgive me for being crude, but how much of the world has enough intelligence to write on the subjects that your cite needs?  And then yet, to do it thoroughly enough to keep visitors coming back on a regular basis?  I think you may need to consider a new plan.  Food for thought.

> >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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l