4
$\begingroup$

I've now got over 5000 reputation, which I see means I can approve edits to tag wikis. However, I can't edit tag wikis until I reach 20000 reputation (see tag info for the 'distributions' tag, for example). Is this a mistake? If not, could someone explain the logic behind this? It seems completely back-to-front to me. I'm trusted to decide whether other people's edits to tag wikis are useful, but I'm not trusted enough to make edits to tag wikis myself. Huh?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You have been very active on the site and made great contributions. Nominate yourself for moderation! stats.stackexchange.com/election $\endgroup$ – Shane Feb 17 '11 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Shane : I'm flattered, but I'm not sure i'm temperamentally suited to the task. Perhaps I'm lacking in public spirit or altruism, but I'm also tempted to ask "what's in it for me"? $\endgroup$ – onestop Feb 17 '11 at 18:49
  • $\begingroup$ It doesn't take very much effort, but it does give you some recognition for all your hard work (as it is). $\endgroup$ – Shane Feb 17 '11 at 18:53
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks again, but reputation is recognition enough! When I say I'm temperamentally unsuited: not only do I not seek power, I tend to actively avoid power. I just hate making decisions that affect other people. I have enough difficulty making decisions that affect only me. $\endgroup$ – onestop Feb 17 '11 at 19:19
  • $\begingroup$ For an interesting take on the utility of rep, see the comments by @Stan Rogers at photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8858/grids-vs-snoots/… . (I admit to having a similar philosophy: once you have achieved enough rep to do what you want on a site, why work for more?) $\endgroup$ – whuber Feb 17 '11 at 23:23
4
$\begingroup$

Making an edit is like posting a reply (which should require some reputation); approving an edit is like voting a reply up (which requires no reputation at all). Seems consistent to me.

What I don't understand is why such a huge reputation (20K/5K) is needed to do anything with these wikis. That precludes their development at this stage and effectively deprecates their value.

(Part of the problem here is that 20K rep is almost nothing on a site like SO where questions get hundreds of votes but is much harder to achieve on a site like this where questions average only four or so votes apiece. But that's a bigger issue...)

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I guess I misunderstood 'approve or reject' as it sounds (too much) like 'accept or reject' to me. I thought it meant approving a suggested change so it became the 'live' version, similiar to the 'Track Changes' feature in MS Word. Agree that some of the rep cut-offs need to account for site traffic. As do the cut-offs for tag badges - i'm now ranked 3rd for rep on CV.SE but i don't have any tag badges so i can't create any tag wikis, which seems pretty ludicrous to me. The tag wiki idea is next to useless at present on this site. $\endgroup$ – onestop Feb 17 '11 at 23:41
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber, note that there is a cap on daily reputation, so if you get hundreds of votes, your reputation does not go through the roof. In my personal opinion the limits are more or less fine, they just shift more work on moderators until there are more users with high reputation. $\endgroup$ – mpiktas Feb 18 '11 at 7:56
  • $\begingroup$ @mpiktas: Yes but at current rates, we won't have many users with over 20K rep for some time. $\endgroup$ – csgillespie Feb 18 '11 at 14:01
  • $\begingroup$ @csgillespie, 5-6 next year is my prediction. $\endgroup$ – mpiktas Feb 18 '11 at 14:05
  • $\begingroup$ How many of them will be mods though? $\endgroup$ – csgillespie Feb 18 '11 at 14:11
  • $\begingroup$ @mpiktas Thanks for remembering the cap. However, those hundreds of votes don't usually all come on the same day, so plenty of them do contribute to the rep. Simply extrapolating the current rate of reputation growth on CV, we will have only two people with 20K+ rep at the end of our first year (in July) and it will take another year to increase that count. That's a lifetime on the Web! $\endgroup$ – whuber Feb 18 '11 at 16:47
3
$\begingroup$

I tried editing wiki yesterday. I chose econometrics. The process was quite painless, I was able to edit, but somebody else had to approve it. The question is who has the right to approve? If it is the moderators only then it is not good. If somebody with reputation over 5k, then it is no problem. Peer review is a good thing. The only question remains is of notification. From what I've read about new changes, the notifications of new edits are only for users with 10k of reputation. For tag wiki's there should be a better way of notifying users who can approve the edits.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It's me. Since two weeks or so, every user can suggest edits, even if they have not enough rep; I don't know if this also applies to tags. Anyway, users with 10k+ (or the mods) can approve or reject those suggested edits (btw, this gives +2 to the user). From what I've seen so far, it generally concerns spelling and/or general formatting issues. In this particular case, I won't propose myself to fill such a tag because I'm not a specialist of this field, but I trust you on that point. I would do the same with @onestop, of course. $\endgroup$ – chl Feb 19 '11 at 8:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .