zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. geezer+(OP)[view] [source] 2019-01-12 09:38:53
> The OP uses the word "insane", not outlier. It's clickbaity, and used in jest, but I think it better captures a subtlety of this phenomenon: The prolific commenters are molding every discussion in their image.

The author's definition of insane is stuff such as having read a lot of books, posting a high mumber of edits in wikipedia, or streaming videogaming for a profit.

That's not clickbaity. It's simply wrong.

Focusing on the most arguable assertion, the wikipedia user who has on average an edit per 4 minutes for pretty much the last decade. Based on my personal experience, it's very easy to reach that sort of rate due to wikipedia's auto-edit features, as it only takes a single click on a link to submit an edit.

For example, you can revert a vandalism submission by clicking the revert link, you can mark an article as stub by clicking on a link, you can add a post to a category by clicking on a link... You can even post a warning on a user page by clicking on a link. Each of these actions count as an edit.

This means that if you happen to stumble on a user who posted a joke on a set of articles, in the half minute it takes to revert all vandalism submissions and warn the user to not repeat that you will contribute tens of edits, which can give you easily a rate of 100 edits per minute.

Does that count as insane?

replies(1): >>gniv+ub
2. gniv+ub[view] [source] 2019-01-12 14:04:56
>>geezer+(OP)
It is clickbaity. It is also wrong, indeed. But it's used here in the same way a person would say to a friend "You're insane!", when hearing of that person's unusual feat (like making 10000 wikipedia edits in the last month).
[go to top]