Talk:Auto-Editor Election
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)
Main server
The documentation links to http://musicbrainz.org/user/election/ 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 http://musicbrainz.org/elections 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)
- Bingo! My mistake. Thanks! :) --Reosarevok 18:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
