1,767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 566:
Line 566: + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Commandments (view source)
Revision as of 11:51, April 13, 2007
, 11:51, April 13, 2007→The 90/10 rule
Under the rule this very post is a black mark against my name. I had better go and do a quick edit to make up for it. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Under the rule this very post is a black mark against my name. I had better go and do a quick edit to make up for it. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:Not even to mention that it's nearly impossible to calculate a halfway exact ratio. Either it's fast ("mainspace edits / total edits") or precise ("Check all edits and decide what is good"), but it can't be both.
:The additional problem is: What is a "quality edit"? Is copyediting an article a "quality edit"? What about fixing a dead-end page by inserting links? What about reverting vandalism? If I revert fifty articles that had been replaced with "CONSERVAPEDIA SUCKS!", does that count for or against my ratio? Is discussing policy (or even ''writing'' policy) a quality edit? What about helping editors or even sysops with technical problems?
:These things will change the way some people act. And I doubt it will be for the better. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)