> Is it not more likely that most long-term editors who have been > active for years have had most of their text mercilessly edited into > oblivion and have very low average "trust" levels?
Sometimes. However, on new page patrol, I'll sometimes completely rewrite a page, both for practice and because I see an inkling of potential in a page that would normally be speedily deleted via SNOW via AfD in a heartbeat. In other words, a well-meaning contributor ALREADY can't be trusted...according to a piece of software. Emily On Aug 30, 2009, at 10:08 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Thomas > Dalton<[email protected]> wrote: >> 2009/8/31 Brian <[email protected]>: >>> I would also point out that competition can be a very healthy >>> thing and it >>> could very well be a motivating tool. Assuming an algorithm that is >>> difficult to game editors might well be very interested in >>> improving their >>> reputation scores. It could even give some credibility to the >>> encyclopedia. >> >> Yes, competition is a good motivator, but that is only useful if it >> is >> motivating people to do something desirable. We don't actually want >> people to try and avoid being reverted - WP:BOLD is still widely >> accepted as a good guideline, isn't it? > > Is it not more likely that most long-term editors who have been active > for years have had most of their text mercilessly edited into oblivion > and have very low average "trust" levels? And more recent editors may > have higher trust levels? > > Carcharoth > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
