[mb-automods] Jim's nomination

[Olivier]

2008/2/5, Andrew Conkling <andrew.conkling at gmail.com>:
> On Feb 5, 2008 7:49 AM, Olivier <viapanda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't see the autoeditor status as a "reward" for people active in
> > discussion/site/etc, and I think it's bad to give database editing
> > privilege just for that reason.
> > Right now, for so little editing (with such an obvious lack of
> > experience), I don't think there is a point in doing so...
> >
> > Probably later?
> >
>
> I know this has been a hot point lately, but I disagree; I think it's a good
> way to facilitate more good editing by reducing the process to do so. Even
> if Jim only sticks to classical edits, I think it's worth allowing him to
> make good edits.
>
> It seems, in general, the alternative is to make editors go through some
> sort of editor "hazing" process, whereby all the tedium somehow makes us
> better equipped as autoeditors? A bit dramatic, I know, but that's kinda the
> way it feels.
>
> I say quality of edits*, not quantity.

Well, I say both are required, and I say quality is not just "don't
make mistake on a pair of cap edits", it's also a "minimum of
experience with multiple aspects of the db".

But maybe the majority of auto-editors these days think of the status
as a "reward" for involvement and/or as an "encouragement" for newbies
:-) (and maybe I'll have to change my mind about it as well ;))

Anyhow, it's not like it's a super-important style issue that needs to
be argued to death :-), so I think there is not much more to say about
it.

Cheers.

- Olivier