Board Thread:Wiki Running/@comment-3225604-20150606084624/@comment-3225604-20150609060623

Imamadmad wrote: Wildoneshelper wrote: Sorry if I have typed wrongly, but the edit count isn't one of the measurable ways to see how much the user has contributed. To judge a user whether s/he has contributed a lot to the wiki, it has to be objective. To me, edit count is one of the objective ways to tell how much s/he has contributed to the wiki. Of course, there are other factors which tell how much s/he has contributed to the wiki.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Choosing new admins is one of the few tasks which should primarily take into account subjective measures. For example, a user may have made 10,000 edits but be really bad with people, whereas another user may have only 1,000 edit but be very friendly and welcoming. In that situation, my support would go to the person with fewer edits and a better attitude. A lot of being an admin is about attitude, as that person must be trusted to act as a representative of the wiki, meaning they must give a good impression to users. For starters, they need to play well with others, they need to be able to take in criticism and change their ways to better their editing, they need to be reliable, they need to be able to acknowledge that adminship is as much about responsibility as rights, and they need to be able to bring something to this wiki with admin powers that they couldn't without them. I believe those subjective measures are much more important than a high edit count.

Well actually I only just set a lower limit, and I think it's reasonable enough to show that the user has contributed enough to the wiki.

Moreover, the most important thing on how an admin could be produced is the voting. I think most of the voters know what the attitude of this candidate is. The votes from the voters reflect how the candidate is. The admins also have the level of maturity, and should be able to judge like what you have mentioned.