I suggest you ...

to take into account the size of revision

I think for example of the first author of an article who can had only 1 revision, but has produced 80% of article bytes.

41 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    BinouBinou shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    1 comment

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • Alexander FurnasAlexander Furnas commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Something along the size of revision would seem to be useful - however - what we really want is *importance* or *significance* of revision. This is harder to quantify given that size is only one aspect of significance. Perhaps some sort of crowdsourced rating system or tagging of significance could be implemented - people could flag key edits that are of note for various reasons. Potentially this could be used as a form of oversite to look for systemic abuse among high level editors. Perhaps some sort of slashdot moderation + meta moderation thing could filter out incorrect tagging of abusive edits. Just some thoughts.

      Feedback and Knowledge Base