So as you can see here, I asked this same question. Except this time it is in the form of a vote, not a discussion. So should we have an edit requirement for Community Voting? And if so, how many edits should be required?
A) No, there should not be an edit requirement. 5 Votes
B) Yes, there should be a requirement of 50 edits. 1 Vote
C) Yes, there should be a requirement of 75 edits. 24 Votes
D) Yes, there should be a requirement of 100 edits.
E) Other.
75 edit requirement.
Avalair wrote:
MeltE2 wrote:
ToneTyphoon wrote:
MeltE2 wrote:
ToneTyphoon wrote:
MeltE2 wrote: Can any of you explain what this accomplishes? If someone votes on something without "learning what the wiki is about" is that really going to hurt anyone? It will be one or two votes at the most. Are you all just scared that perhaps some new user from another wiki will say something completely irrelevant to the discussion and convince some people to change their votes and thus harm the community? :O And by blocking that completely plausible situation, you will also potentially shield the community from expert advice and viewpoints from more successful wikis.
So just, why?
I don't see what's wrong with giving their advice, but why do we have to do what they say?
Let's make our own freaking decisions.
.......Isn't this just saying they can't vote?
Where the heck are those.......?
Those votes are to add all RfR rules to Community Voting; this is for edit requirements only.
Looks to me like he's saying we're having discussions about restricting people from being allowed to contribute to the discussion period.
I'll be weird and vote B. 
</noscript>
(Edit) Nah, changing to C. I'm fully convinced now.
</noscript>
I'd like to just open this again to point out one thing; no matter how far the votes are from each other, I feel the amount of time this was left up is not enough. Not everyone checks in everyday, and even the loyalist miss days from time to time. Just because one suggestion is going to win in a landslide doesn't mean you have to close it with 24 hours. I feel that is rather unfair to those who want to make comments on the vote later if they didn't get the chance to say anything earlier.
Just my two cents. If an admin feels he should close this again, by all means do so.
(The vote is over, but we can still have discussions at the moment)
Just my two cents. If an admin feels he should close this again, by all means do so.
(The vote is over, but we can still have discussions at the moment)
</noscript>
Just my two cents. If an admin feels he should close this again, by all means do so.
(The vote is over, but we can still have discussions at the moment)
</noscript>
Just my two cents. If an admin feels he should close this again, by all means do so.
(The vote is over, but we can still have discussions at the moment)
So can I close the thread again?
Anyone who is a legitimate user who wants 75 edits can, as far as I'm concerned, start a conversation on my message wall. I won't complain.
Just my two cents. If an admin feels he should close this again, by all means do so.
(The vote is over, but we can still have discussions at the moment)
Go ahead, boss.
Don't worry, LSB. I'm making a Community Discussion (And soon after, a vote) about how long we should keep Community Votes open.
