3 ms·

In your Beverly Gray example, it's all one editor who did not seem to realize that there is a preview button. The sad part about that is that Wikipedia has a WS

In your Beverly Gray example, it's all one editor who did not seem to realize that there is a preview button. The sad part about that is that Wikipedia has a WSIWYG editor called VisualEditor so maybe using that might have helped avoid the log spam. As for your question, the reasons are likely as you guess, mundane, and are probably just popular topics that get updated frequently or were targeted by a few editors to improve.

ggchappell 10y ago
> In your Beverly Gray example, it's all one editor who did not seem to realize that there is a preview button. Wow. I count 4930 edits to that page, by a single account, over the 199-day period from January 20, 2016 to July 26, 2016. And then 56 edits by other accounts cleaning up after that one account -- an awful lot of them by just one other account -- with comments like "prune. excessive detail, excessive quotation, excessive referencing". The result seems to be quite a nice page. I've noted in other contexts that a certain kind of two-author team can be very productive: one who can spew out mountains of verbiage, and one who can edit it down to something readable. Here we see the phenomenon at work once again.