nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
6,781
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 572:
Line 572: + +
Conservapedia talk:Commandments (view source)
Revision as of 00:03, April 16, 2007
, 00:03, April 16, 2007→The 90/10 rule
: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?
: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)
: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)
I believe it's intended more as a reminder/guideline that productive work is more important than endless arugments than a specific, mathematically calculated rule. I don't think anybody's going to go down the list and count anybody's edits and figure out from there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
== "No Unlawful Activity?" ==
== "No Unlawful Activity?" ==