Talk:Auto-Editor Election: Difference between revisions
From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
PavanChander (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== |
== Criteria == |
||
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. --[[User:PavanChander|navap]] 08:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC) |
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. --[[User:PavanChander|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 |
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 |
* experience with the various editing aspects of the site |
||
* clear grasp of the [[Style Guidelines]] |
* a clear grasp of the [[Style Guidelines]] |
||
* a willingness to help and support other users |
* a willingness to help and support other users |
||
* the ability to take an objective point of view regarding the data they edit |
* 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 |
* 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). [[User:Bogdanb|bogdanb]] 15:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC) |
: 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). [[User:Bogdanb|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. --[[User:PavanChander|navap]] 04:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:22, 25 May 2010
Criteria
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)