Board Thread:Consensus track/@comment-7153552-20130927224851/@comment-3076045-20130929142427

PsijicThief wrote: Flightmare wrote:

PsijicThief wrote:

As for the contribution requirements, what if we altered it to say at least 50, and notate that X amount or percent need to be non-minor? Can be tricky, any user fixing 100 links or other very small errors would not validate with such reasoning. Lots of minor contributions can be some major jump forward in many ways. And we are talking about the contributions in a 30-day window. The original guideline doesn't say anything about recent edits, just overall. Perhaps if we were to raise the number somewhere between 50-75 minor or major wouldn't be a determining factor. At that point we would just need to take a gander if said edits were apparent badge hunting. I was made aware of this thread by the words "badge hunting" ;)

Seriously though - I very much like this discussion so far.

PsijicThief wrote: I'd like to see many of them weigh in, to be honest, as it will all boil down to their call.

Sky Above,Voice Within wrote: Imma wait for someone green to come in and wash my ideals away. These last two concern me, however.

This is something that we should get straightened out here. Everyone ELSE's opinions are just as important as the Admins.

As to the difference between main and minor edits, personally, I believe that any edit that actually improves the article (including fixing typographical errors and links) should be considered a proper, valid (i.e. "Main") edit.

Rearranging a sentence so that it reads pretty much exactly the same, just different wording - is a minor edit.

Yes, that's a low bar to set it as, but the idea was to make sure that you have at least made some sort of contribution to the wiki before you could be nominated.

And if folks disagree with what I think - then great! The whole reason for the consensus track is for the community to come up with ideas. Wikis are for group consensus, not individuals telling others how it should be.