Talk:Auto-Editor Election

From MusicBrainz Wiki


I feel this is an important section to include in the main article, it would be a useful guide to proposers and also provide information to users who want to become an Auto-Editor. --navap 08:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no hard and fast prerequisite criteria that must be met before a user is "worthy" of being elected as an Auto-Editor, and while each situation may differ, the following are some general guidelines to keep in mind.

Auto-editors should have:

  • experience with the various editing aspects of the site
  • a clear grasp of the Style Guidelines
  • a willingness to help and support other users
  • the ability to take an objective point of view regarding the data they edit
  • a reasonably significant volume of current activity

  • reasonably significant volume of current activity
I agree that it’s almost implied by the above, and “reasonably significant” is a debatable term, but I think it should be said. An election takes time and attention, so it’s not exactly worth doing it for users who do only a small bit of editing (even if they were active before), even if it would be useful in absolute terms. The sweet-spot would be when someone contributed for a while (so they know the ropes) but they didn’t finish their collections yet (so they have more interest). bogdanb 15:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree, current activity is quite important, I don't know how I missed that. I think all the items in the list could be debated so I see nothing wrong with having another debatable item. I've added it to the list. --navap 04:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Main server

The documentation links to which doesn't exist, which makes "Election results are available for anyone to review" somewhat optimistic, the results probably are available, but only a select few know where. --Erik Warmelink 15:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps is meant. --Erik Warmelink 15:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Bingo! My mistake. Thanks! :) --Reosarevok 18:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Got to go, but there are more links to it. --Erik Warmelink 19:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)