Last modified: 2005-12-16 16:21:32 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 4221 - Display number of edits and sysop status next to usernames
Display number of edits and sysop status next to usernames
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 3226
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Special pages (Other open bugs)
1.6.x
All All
: Normal enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2005-12-08 16:45 UTC by Nyenyec
Modified: 2005-12-16 16:21 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Nyenyec 2005-12-08 16:45:17 UTC
It would be great if one could see the number of edits when a user is displayed,
similar to how eBay displays ratings.

E.g.  instead of "Scott" show "Scott (543)" where the number is the editcount of
the user in the article namespace

This would give a quick idea about how much a certain user can be trusted not to
know the guidelines, not to make mistakes (like uploading copyrighted texts) or
bad faith edits.

It would be nice to have a switch and that would turn this on everywhere where
usernames are shown including:

- discussion pages
- the page history
- recent changes
- watchlists

Of course, a more sophisticated rating could be calculated ("karma") that would
take into account what other editors think of the user, has she committed policy
violations, etc but a simple editcount should be very easily implemented.
Comment 1 Rob Church 2005-12-08 16:48:27 UTC
There are continuous screeching discussions about edit counts, "editcountitis"
and all sorts of arguments against any kinds of ranking on the major wikis;
particularly EN-WP. This would cause no end of wailing, head-bashing,
bloodletting...

...wait a minute. Users letting blood? Hmm.
Comment 2 David Gerard 2005-12-08 17:18:05 UTC
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Kate
Comment 3 Nyenyec 2005-12-08 17:22:08 UTC
There should be a switch , so only users who turn this explicitly on would see
the numbers.

If you're not interested, don't turn it on. If you're interested, you can
already get this information, it's just much more cumbersome.

I would even be happy if the names of new users, those with less than 100 edits
(or 10 or 200) -- would be highlighted.
Comment 4 Rob Church 2005-12-08 19:19:36 UTC
More a case of performance.
Comment 5 Nyenyec 2005-12-14 18:41:07 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> More a case of performance.

Even with just a single "less than X edits" flag?
Comment 6 Rob Church 2005-12-14 18:42:57 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > More a case of performance.
> 
> Even with just a single "less than X edits" flag?

We still have to hit the DB to count them, unless we add a persistent edit count
field of some description, such as Avar and Tim were chatting about in IRC a
while back.
Comment 7 bdk 2005-12-16 11:09:36 UTC
What an absurd idea to mark all edits by a user with such a number or a kind of status.
If I'm e.g. adding content to an article there's no relation to my sysop status. A user 
with 10.000 small typo edits is not consequently more experienced than one with 
1.000 substantial edits, especially on talk pages such an indication would be very, very 
misleading in many cases ... and "editcountitis" is an appropriate word for this harmful 
request. 

If you just want to mark "new users", then this bug should better be closed and you
may switch to bug 245 or bug 3226.
Comment 8 Rob Church 2005-12-16 16:21:32 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 3226 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links