3 ms·

There's regular users and then there's "Extended confirmed users" who have more permissions and can do things such as edit protected pages >User is automatical

There's regular users and then there's "Extended confirmed users" who have more permissions and can do things such as edit protected pages >User is automatically added to the group when the account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. This user access right allows editors to edit and create pages that are under extended confirmed protection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels

Thorrez 3y ago
The original article doesn't seem to be making a distinction between regular users and extended confirmed users. It seems to call them all editors.
- sebstefan 3y ago
  Yes, I gathered they meant extended confirmed users because I can read context clues
  - 9question1 3y ago
    tfw you see a snarky comment on a discussion thread about toxic comments
    - sebstefan 3y ago
      Guilty... I made a wikipedia edit 2 hours ago, too, but there was no snark in it
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    >they Are you talking about Semaphor or about the original article's authors?
    - sebstefan 3y ago
      I was talking about Semaphor
rewmie 3y ago
> There's regular users and then there's "Extended confirmed users" (...) The accusation isn't directed at users with specific role-oriented permissions. The accusation is directed at editors. Everyone in wikipedia is an editor. Even users who haven't logged in, or have an account at all. It's a nonsense claim, particularly when we take into account that the whole concept of a wiki is that everyone in the world is an editor.
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  I think you're being a bit pedantic. There are people who rarely make edits on Wikipedia, and then there are people who do it all the time and participate in the wider culture/community/bureaucracy of Wikipedia. I believe the original comment was talking about people who regularly edit Wikipedia articles.
  - rewmie 3y ago
    > I think you're being a bit pedantic. I'm not. I'm pointing out the absurdity of complaining that in Wikipedia you have editors editing. > There are people who rarely make edits on Wikipedia (...) It really doesn't matter. Wikipedia allows them to edit anything as they please, even if they choose not to. Again, the whole point of a wiki is that everyone is an editor. The very definition of a wiki is that "a website or database developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content." I stress "allowing any user to add and edit content." Any user. Do you see what I mean? > I believe the original comment was talking about people who regularly edit Wikipedia articles. Again, the original comment makes no sense because everyone is an editor. You cannot add a contribution without editing it. You cannot revert a change without editing it. Any operation on an article represents an edit. Anyone can edit articles on wikipedia. Everyone is an editor, even those without user accounts. Don't you understand that the original comment makes no sense, knowing what a wiki is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki Adding to this, the original comment tries to refer to "Editor" as if it's somekind of authority figure which is somehow victimizing him for editing content they added. Yet, isn't that the whole concept of a wiki, that anyone is free to edit anything they see fit? Do you understand the absurdity of that comment?

Thorrez 3y ago

The original article doesn't seem to be making a distinction between regular users and extended confirmed users. It seems to call them all editors.

sebstefan 3y ago
Yes, I gathered they meant extended confirmed users because I can read context clues
- 9question1 3y ago
  tfw you see a snarky comment on a discussion thread about toxic comments
  - sebstefan 3y ago
    Guilty... I made a wikipedia edit 2 hours ago, too, but there was no snark in it
- Thorrez 3y ago
  >they Are you talking about Semaphor or about the original article's authors?
  - sebstefan 3y ago
    I was talking about Semaphor

rewmie 3y ago

> There's regular users and then there's "Extended confirmed users" (...) The accusation isn't directed at users with specific role-oriented permissions. The accusation is directed at editors. Everyone in wikipedia is an editor. Even users who haven't logged in, or have an account at all. It's a nonsense claim, particularly when we take into account that the whole concept of a wiki is that everyone in the world is an editor.

patmorgan23 3y ago
I think you're being a bit pedantic. There are people who rarely make edits on Wikipedia, and then there are people who do it all the time and participate in the wider culture/community/bureaucracy of Wikipedia. I believe the original comment was talking about people who regularly edit Wikipedia articles.
- rewmie 3y ago
  > I think you're being a bit pedantic. I'm not. I'm pointing out the absurdity of complaining that in Wikipedia you have editors editing. > There are people who rarely make edits on Wikipedia (...) It really doesn't matter. Wikipedia allows them to edit anything as they please, even if they choose not to. Again, the whole point of a wiki is that everyone is an editor. The very definition of a wiki is that "a website or database developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content." I stress "allowing any user to add and edit content." Any user. Do you see what I mean? > I believe the original comment was talking about people who regularly edit Wikipedia articles. Again, the original comment makes no sense because everyone is an editor. You cannot add a contribution without editing it. You cannot revert a change without editing it. Any operation on an article represents an edit. Anyone can edit articles on wikipedia. Everyone is an editor, even those without user accounts. Don't you understand that the original comment makes no sense, knowing what a wiki is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki Adding to this, the original comment tries to refer to "Editor" as if it's somekind of authority figure which is somehow victimizing him for editing content they added. Yet, isn't that the whole concept of a wiki, that anyone is free to edit anything they see fit? Do you understand the absurdity of that comment?