Electowiki talk:The caucus: Difference between revisions
→Editing velocity
(→EM list migration nominations: Split out VoteFair's comment on #Editing_velocity into new discussion about EM list) |
|||
Line 279:
: If we had lots of users, we could experiment with Approval-y editing where the users could mark which paragraphs they consider important and not. But we don't have enough users for the jury theorem to work, and even if we did, just coding the thing would take a lot of time. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 00:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
:: Thanks for weighing in so quickly! I've always loved the Pascal quote in that link above ("I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time"), but many of the others are also apropos. I think it would be fun to experiment with some sort of Approval-y editing method, but I also agree that it would take a lot of time, and the cost/benefit ratio is probably too high (and out of reach, at the moment). -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 00:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
=== Editing queue ===
Here's an idea: for editors who make a lot of edits (like me), if they make more than a certain number of edits in a day then the edits over the threshold go into a queue. Every day that there are edits in the queue, some number of edits in the queue are automatically implemented. Also, other editors can peer review and approve edits you make, speeding or maybe even automatically getting them out of the queue and implemented.
A further refinement of this idea would be to group edits by article (i.e. if you edit the FPTP article and that edit goes into the queue, and then you make a second edit, then both edits should be lumped together as one, so that they can more quickly leave the queue.) [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 03:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
== EM list migration nominations ==
| |||