On 23/10/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/22/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
According to a contribution history from http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate , they do not have any pages in Main space with over 10 edits, 9,7,7 are the top three. I am wondering why they are here, then I look at Wikipedia space and the highest page has 407, followed by 382, 326.
Those kind of stats, without anything else, doesn't necessarily mean much. If you're a person that do alot of RC-patrol and/or other gnomish activites, you don't usually get that many edits per article. Also, many people do substantial improvements in just one edit (I tend to do that, and thus I have similar numbers). These situations are not uncommon. I know a number users who have improved a thousands of articles with just one edit. Many people edit that way. My point is that you need to look at fuller picture of an editors activites before you can judge him.
As some other people have pointed out, if this editor did substantial work before his latest 500 edits, even if that work was just cleanup or RC-patrol and such, he has earned his position in the community. And with that, his rights to influence policy.
Again, I can't really say whether this is the case here. I'm just saying, numbers can be decieving.
--Oskar
That may be the case if they do have a large number of single edit mainspace contributions, but they actually got straight into administration issues from the time they arrived, starting with XfD's in their first few edits and not stopping up until now.
Maybe my initial summary was wrong. I was simply trying to point out that unless you know what the deal is with editing articles, how can you deal with the meta issues? Keep in mind this is not what I would call a company, its a single class community IMO.
Peter Ansell