What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 127 Stack Exchange communities.

A threshold of 2000 for editing other people's non-wiki posts is too high. Some people who are regular contributors would still take a year or two to earn enough reputation to reach that threshold.

(If anyone's interested in comparisons, in Wikipedia, you're allowed to edit existing articles before you're allowed to create new articles)

share|improve this question
add comment

8 Answers

One year: 2000 / 365 = 5 reputation per day. That means every other day you would have to earn one upvote. If you aren't doing that, then you aren't a 'contributor' (at least one that I would trust editing my posts).

share|improve this answer
2  
Very well said. –  GEOCHET Jul 13 '09 at 23:34
    
@Rich B Thanks! –  jjnguy Jul 13 '09 at 23:35
add comment

Absolutely 2000 can take awhile, it took me about 9 months on SO. However, you have to draw a line at some point. It seems to me no one can get to 2k without having some level of investment in the site and spending enough time around the site to pick up on some of the community expectations. But, the lower you drop it, the more likely you will have people with less investment and knowledge of the system gaining trust they may not use well. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I think it's working well where it is.

share|improve this answer
add comment

StackOverflow has a much greater sense of ownership for content than does Wikipedia, and therefore a much higher standard for editors.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I think the threshold is fine where it is at. You still get plenty of people arguing it is too low or that posts shouldn't be edited at all (I guess reading the FAQ is too hard).

share|improve this answer
1  
Reading is hard.... –  jjnguy Jul 13 '09 at 23:33
add comment

Having the authority to edit other people's posts is a pretty big deal. If anything, I would be in favor of increasing the amount of rep required. It took me 14 days (today, actually) to reach 2,000 here on Meta, and even less on SO. If you're active, you'll gain rep quickly.

share|improve this answer
1  
Why is it a big deal? –  Andrew Grimm Jul 14 '09 at 3:57
3  
Because you have the power to change what I posted. –  Jonathan Sampson Jul 14 '09 at 9:34
add comment

To expand upon what jinguy posted:

One year: 2000 / 365 = 5 reputation per day. That means every other day you would have to earn one upvote. If you aren't doing that, then you aren't a 'contributor' (at least one that I would trust editing my posts).

I would argue that this reputation number should be higher to the tune of 3,000 or so in a calendar year. The ability to edit posts should be for current active contributors and someone who is not maintaining 3,000 points in a calendar year is probably not a very active contributor.

Maybe new proposal:

Increase reputation threshold to edit posts to 3,000 points within the last 12 calendar months (last full year from today).

I just made the official proposal here:

Increase reputation limit to gain "EDIT" privleges

share|improve this answer
2  
I like the idea of a rolling window. –  Jeff Yates Jul 14 '09 at 0:31
    
I've proposed this here: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4985/… –  RSolberg Jul 14 '09 at 0:47
add comment

I have to wonder if it isn't too low.

If you answer questions then 2000 isn't really all that much and (imho) people who answer questions are the best qualified to edit other answers.

But since we haven't really had a problem with editing so there's probably no reason to change it.

share|improve this answer
    
I agree over time, 2000 isn't that hard... with enough answers and enough time. But, it still shows involvement in the site. And likely in that time you'll have learned how the site works. –  Timothy Carter Jul 14 '09 at 0:08
3  
@cletus - don't forget it is abuse and offensive to name people in posts... –  RSolberg Jul 14 '09 at 0:12
    
But +1 for the idea of it being too low... –  RSolberg Jul 14 '09 at 0:12
    
@RSolberg: a statement of fact within the context of a question is not abusive and offensive. That person may be offended by being "named and shamed" but that's not quite the same thing. Case in point: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1790/… obviously offended RichB none of it I could see could be construed as "abuse". –  cletus Jul 14 '09 at 0:20
    
@cletus - I'm totally not arguing with you on this one... Just sharing my lessons learned :) –  RSolberg Jul 14 '09 at 0:21
2  
@cletus: "...as appealing as it might be to make..." is not a statement of fact, it's your opinion. –  Bill the Lizard Jul 14 '09 at 1:17
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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