Summary section discussion
Oh. Okay. Sorry then. (Still trying to figure out how this works ^^).
- Yes. Yes. Yes. Definitely agree with this one. Seriously needed.
- That's interesting. But what exactly makes up a Senior Editor status? Years spent at Wiki? Edit count? Or a something like a RFA?
- Hm. I think Wiki already has something like that. (The often mentioned but rarely used Sandbox?) Or do you mean something like a few practice articles?
- The problem with that is that most of that should be common sense. An article like Adolf Hitler or abortion is going to be more hot-spot than say Mitsukazu Mihara (Goth-Loli mangaka). But then again, it may not be obvious to others. Hm. Maybe a little symbol at the top of the page to show that it is a potential hot-spot? What exactly do you mean by editing rating difficulty? For some reason I'm imagining the US terrorism alert ratings. ^.^
Not one but two "Task Forces" (Quality & Community Health) made recommendations concerning the "Senior Editor" status.
Community health also included a part concerning new editor the most interesting bit:
Demarcate new users in their usernames/signatures, so there is no excuse for "accidentally" biting a newbie
There were a lot of discussion around the "Senior Editors" we concluded that we need it but we had troubles to clearly define the requirements for that status. There are seniors editors who focus on few Featured Articles and those who focus on bringing more articles to B-Class yet both needed to be recognized for their competences & easily identifiable by new editors looking for guidance.
About editing difficulty rating that was discussed at Thread:Talk:Task force/Reader Conversion/Missing recommendations about how to increase participation in under-represented group.