Wikipedia talk:Editcountitis

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Editcountitis page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

This project page was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Department of Fun Bottom‑importance This page is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.Department of FunWikipedia:Department of FunTemplate:WikiProject Department of FunDepartment of Fun articles Bottom This page has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale. Wikipedia essays Mid‑impact This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages Mid This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

If it doesn't matter, then why does the list exist at all? It seems to me that since the list does exist, it must have some significance. Ranking people by the number of edits must be important to somebody --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 10:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cabal. Mwahahaha…. — Bcat ^{(talk • email)} 14:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The list exists because it's interesting, not because is significant. You can see the difference, surely? --Sn0wflake 19:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I look at it like Slashdot's karma or eBay's ranking system. It's a sort of validation of the user. The more edits a person has, the more likely it is that that person is making worthwhile contributions. It's good for stroking your own ego, even if it isn't something you could put on a resume. Still, I think the list is significant because it is interesting. Maybe it's just a list of useless statistics, but I think there are probably some people who put a lot of weight on how many edits a person has, regardless of quality. Anyway, Bcat's response was what I was going after - that made my day :-) --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 20:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When people want to count edits, they use Kate's tool, not the list. And they are rarely counted outside of WP:RfA, anyway. Not many actually bother with such trivial statistics. It's fun to see how high you rank on the list (I'm 700 or something close to that), but in the end of the day, nobody cares. Editcountitis is debated a lot, but in reality is far less widespread than people make it seem. It's merely a "OMG!!!!!!! It's teh danger! It's going to kill teh Wiki!" thing. --Sn0wflake 20:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"however, it is very real. In fact, it can be fatal in its later stages"

How many fatalities have been documented that were directly attributable to editcountitis? - MPF 00:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(g)old fossils. Enjoyer of World (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks largely to the orphan talk pages project, images for deletion, and the new speedy deletion criteria for images, I've made use of the deletion button more than 12,000 times since becoming an admin a little over a month ago. *pounds delete button furiously* Coffee 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Except when you're requesting an adminship, no matter how long you've been here for or how good your edits are. :D Comics 02:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "Seriously though" set of paragraphs is very reassuring, except it leads us with one problem. The "not a reliable way to tell how experienced... a user is", is untrue. Though I accept a user can have been on Wikipedia for a very short time and have accrued a vast number of edits, no user can make edits without accessing Wikipedia, and thus, technically, we must have been here for a greater period of time than any of our "Earliest edits" (a constant, but always useful, statistic on, for example, Kate's tools, or a user's individual "Earliest" button.) I believe this paragraph (not the one I'm writing, the one in the article :p) is misleading. Thoughts? Bobo192 05:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to have an account to be able to edit the Wikipedia, thus the number of edits your acount has does not necessarily reflect your experience. Plus, a high number of edits may be the product of a lack of use of the preview button, persistent fixing of minor spelling errors, repeated edits to User space, etc. So yes, it's not a reliable way of telling whether the user is experienced or not, as an experienced user can generally be considered as somebody who knows most of Wikipedia's processes, rules and workings, and who has interacted with the community and forth. --Sn0wflake 02:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, I have seen users make billions of edits like removing a comma, adding it back in, removing it, adding it back in (see Craig Gannon). So while edit count might be an accurate way of measuring experience, it's not definitive, and can be influenced (I only stumbled upon Craig Gannon by accident, God knows if the user might have accumulated more tha 500 edits in a row had I not noticed and taken some action!). Deskana (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, people don't usually do edits for no reason at all (editcountitis is effectively no reason at all since it's terribly under-stimulating, especially if you estimate a person's contributions based also the number of months they've edited, since people don't add and remove a comma for months on end). I think nearly everyone does edits because 1) they feel malevolence towards wikipedia for one reason or another (so they vandalize, which quickly becomes obvious on their talk page), 2) they're interested in at least one aspect of wikipedia (so they contribute to that area), or 3) they're bored, and repetitive stub-sorting or vandal-checking soothes them (which may be an easier way to rack up edits, but it's nonetheless a useful contribution that we couldn't get along without). --Interiot 22:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the quality of the edits are more important than the quantity. Nevertheless, quantity also plays a part (like it or not). Some DO care about the number of QUALITY edits you have made. It reveals to us your commitment and desire to improve this massive project. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ha ha. Editcountis can be fatal. Kind of humour the teachers at my school use. Yancyfry jr 05:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct spelling of this article's title is editcountosis. Pcu123456789 01:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any references for this? It is the first time I am reading this correct spelling. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change proposal

I suggest that for accuracy the name of this article should be changed to Editcountosis, as -itis suggests an inflammation, whereas -osis implies an increase. ;-)

Reference: Etymologicon -osis - "Condition, Process, Action; Increase; Formation." From the same in Latin and Greek. --apers0n 15:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i think it's a pun on Senioritis somewhat. -- Chris is me 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really no prize for getting loads of edits. Isn't the AutoWikiBrowser a type of prize? You need 500 (main) namespace edits to get registered. At time of writing, I had 165 edits in (main). Currently I have …. --Leon2323

19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 

I would also say that permission to vote in Wiki board elections might also be viewed as a prize. In most cases, I make a change by previewing, fixing the many typos I make and finally saving when I am sure everything is in order. Bad idea! It means I have less than 400 edits to my name, so I'm not worthy to cast a vote. Ringbark 17:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editcountitis is becoming fatal to wikipedia in this way. That's why you should rightly be worried about it. Kim Bruning 03:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But in the end, there needs to be some way sort of limited franchise for voting, in order to avoid the situation where supporters or detractors of a particular proposal (particularly in regards to deletions) flood a vote in order to receive the result they want. With which method other than edit counts would you propose for this purpose? Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Votes with well-reasoned arguments should be paid attention to, no matter how few edits that user has. Votes with crappy or no arguments should not be listened to, no matter how many edits those users/sockpuppets have.

That is how it Should Work(tm). Obviously it is not how it always does work, but we should always strive towards that ideal.

It's called Editcountitis because that's the original term that was coined. Look up who User:Kate is/was, she developed Kate's Tools and became upset that people were using her tool to focus on edits as a measure of epeen. I think she was the one who came up with the word Editcountitis.74.61.41.118 04:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a tool that counts "new article" creation?--Appraiser (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:Interiot had such a tool that ran on toolserver (using an offline copy of the database), but he hasn't been active since July 11, 2007. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You all do know -itis means inflammation, right? Your basically saying your edit count is inflamed. :P Renaissancee (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammation leads to swelling, so you can assume that editcountitis leads to a swollen edit count. -- Atama頭 18:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be interesting to add a link to this counter? emijrp (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that this whole article is meant as a joke, and is being kept for light relief from serious Wikipedia editing, but I still wish to make serious point I agree with the above Wikipedian who pointed out that "itis" means "inflammation". This article is giving people a misleading impression, and should be renamed as "Wikipedia: Edit count addiction" or "Wikipedia: Edit Count Gluttony" or "Obsessive Wikipedia Edit Counting Disorders" or something to that effect ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, ACEOREVIVED, I disagree. I like the current name, because I feel it clearly demonstrates the humorous nature of the page. Whilst technically incorrect in the medical sense, common usage shows that the suffix is used to represent addiction/preoccupation in other places, in invented terms - such as footballitis >20,000 Ghits and simply, it scans quite well in the word, much like Wikipediaholic, which is similarly technically incorrect.

However, noting your parallel request on WP:RM, I have created a couple of redirects, because they are cheap - so Wikipedia:Edit count addiction and Wikipedia:Editcount addiction now both redirect to the page.

I hope you will reconsider; failing that, we would need to see more consensus here, with other users agreeing with your request, before moving the page. Best,  Chzz  ►  04:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be more humorous if you make a funny cure. Like not eating for 49235908514985923 decades, or something. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 04:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not a danger that this article could actually encourage what it calls "Editcountitis"? I think that it may have had that effect on me! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, should it not be pointed out somewhere that quality comes before quantity, so high-quality edits are more impressive than mere corrections of mistakes or suchlike? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK - before any one else points this out, I shall point out that it it is in the article, i.e. words to the effect of Quality before Quantity. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could there not be similar articles, such as one on "WikiLinkitis" - the feeling that one must put just about every single substantive word in an article as a wikilink? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking is mentioned in the manual of style, see WP:OVERLINK. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking might be mentioned there, but this does not necessarily inform us about the compulsion some Wikipedians may have to wikilink excessively. A long time ago, I saw at the talk page on the recent deaths category (unfortunately, I cannot remember when)that there was some talk about this tendency there. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether we should remove the section on how no serious injuries or fatalities have been reported. Comments here are welcome. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to have missed out observing how any one with true Editcountitis must feel real glee at the way the Editcounter is now working promptly. At one time, it did not record your edits in the past several hours - now, it seems to have an up-to-date, band on edit count. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To verify what I just said, I shall point out that a little while ago, I did that edit count, and my live edits were 2,535. I just did again since that last edit - and they were 2,536. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular contributor to Uncyclopedia, I find this page being somewhat offensive. I have done my hardest to avoid adding in any factual information UN any of the articles I have completed on Uncyclopedia. I don't expect to find an article that belongs squarely in the "content-free encyclopedia" being included on a genuine encyclopedia. To that end I ask that any form of irony being included on Wikipedia being immediately removed. Any lack of drastic action and you will be hearing from our legal team Thank you for your understanding. PuppyOnTheRadio (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very easy way to increase one's edit count. Just say, of programmes or events in the news, "currently" or "next week" then change that to last week or to past tense once the event is over or the programme has been broadcast. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, what seems to be on "My contributions" is an edit that did not manage to get saved. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Social Science Citation Index, the number of times an author's work were cited is sometimes used as measure of eminence. In the same way, do not some Wikipedians get obsessed not by the number of edits they made,but the number of times messages they left on talk pages were followed by other comments from other Wikipedians? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of this article, Rick Block was the one who suggested that no matter you rank on the list you will never catch me - but he is not even on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits unless that is a reference to the bot which he operates. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Me" is not meant to refer to anyone in particular (most definitely not me), just some mythical person that you are competing with - i.e. there is almost certainly someone higher on "the list" who edits more frequently than you do. Zooming out a bit, this page is not meant to be anything other than a lighthearted attempt at humor. Are you in the least confused about this? -- Rick Block (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I did appreciate that this article is one of the less serious articles in Wikipedia, and that many Wikipedians are not against a bit of fun in Wikipedia - that is the very raison d'etre of the Department of Fun. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing which would really annoy people with "editcountitis" is that if one goes to one's userpage and clicks on "My contributions", and then goes down to click on "Edit count", as from February 8 2012 it appears the edit counter has expired. This should go in the article somewhere, if any one knows how to phrase this in a way that will not upset the flow of the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The counter has been copied to tools:~tparis/pcount/. benzband (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "black day" - or should it be week? - one was referring to in this article was when edit counts were delayed for a week. There is a discussion about this at Wikipedia: Village Pump (proposals). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Sorry - it was not at Wikipedia: Village pump (proposals). It was actually at Wikipedia: Village Pump (technical), which does make quite a lot of sense. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article used to be called "Editcountitis" but I shall say that I prefer the new name. It does not lead to confusion with what the suffix "itis" really means (i.e. an inflammation). I appreciate that others may beg to differ, but that is the nature of a a wiki. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Editcountitis. The Wiktionary defines -itis as :

-itis

1. (pathology) Suffix denoting diseases characterized by inflammation, itself often caused by an infection.
2. (humorous) Used to form the names of various fictitious afflictions or diseases.

Here it is obviously the humorous (#2) definition that applies. Also, "editcountitis" puts it in line with it's sister essays, Barnstaritis, Userboxitis, Watchlistitis and Wikilinkitis. benzband (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second meaning of the suffix -itis may be false

The people uses -itis for ficiticious diseases because they do NOT know the specific names of each category of diseases and do NOT know the TRUE meaning of that suffix (the first one). Wiktionary tells the second meaning as used for ficticious diseases because the people use it because they do NOT know much about medicine, that is why I changed the name of this page and ACEOREVIVED prefers the new name. --BOMBINI (messages) 06:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition [1]

-itis

— suffix forming nouns

1. indicating inflammation of a specified part: tonsillitis
2. (informal) indicating a preoccupation with or imaginary condition of illness caused by: computeritis ; telephonitis

[New Latin, from Greek, feminine of -itēs belonging to; see -ite 1 ]

The informal (#2) definition once again applies. This essay is humorous and informal: it's tagged {{humor}} and {{Department of Fun}}. The #2 is not just a "false" meaning, it is part of popular culture; derived from the medical term.

Also note that if one cannot trust Wiktionary, a sister project, one can equally not trust Wikipedia ;-) benzband (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Benzband has the reason, but ACEOREVIVED appreciated the new name. --BOMBINI (messages) 21:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hey, guys, I'm here from the WP:3O board. (This is by far the silliest thing I've seen a request for.) I know that -itis has a specific medical definition, but that's not really the point. People use -itis for fictitious diseases fullstop. The fact that they use it makes it fine for us to use, and more importantly, it looks much better. After all, brevity is the soul of wit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. GrindtXX (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equally on point, the name should reflect common usage (ideally within reliable sources). "Editcountitis" is a well established Wikipedia-ism, see for example Wikipedia:Glossary. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok shall i move it back then (per consensus)? benzband (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it that when I clicked on random article game, I got redirected to Denis Guyer? I did not see the logic here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now realise that this game just means that you click on "random" and get directed to any of the over three million articles in Wikipedia. However, since you might get redirected there and only read those sections, not edit them, I am still sure that this question is at all relevant to the subject of this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently (as of July 2012) one's last edits in the last 17 hours are still not being counted; this should get mention at something else that will infuriate Wikipedians with this problem. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, lol. That's because of replication lag. benzband (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already added it though. benzband (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's this for? I get the joke, but what's the point of this page? Avengingbandit 21:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the page, it talks about changing your username. How do you actually change your username? Super cuty27 01:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "They might have tried to keep their edit-count below 40,000."

What is so special about this number? Or was it chosen at random? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, how would that work? Do you just stop editing once you reach 39,999? Keeping average edits-per-day below a certain amount strikes me as a more sensible goal. Double sharp (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Editcountitis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message) The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article reads like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage. Please help improve this article and add independent sources. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

We need to work on this. Greedo8 (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite a source for this please? Nuvigil (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just how there is a test for Wikipediholism, should there be a test to assess Editcountitis in Wikipedia?Vorbee (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that after your five hundredth edit, there is no prize for your two thousandth edit. Surely there is a "prize" for your thousandth edit, as you receive some notification from Wikipedia when you have made your thousandth edit (I remember that I did). Vorbee (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there are notifications for your 10,000th, 100,000th, 1,000,000th, and 10,000,000th edits. Maybe they should be mentioned in the page? 220.85.41.193 (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This made my day. Thank you, Wikipedia. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrishnaDasMath (talk • contribs) 08:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we remove the wiki link? It seems not related. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there is a danger that having this article might encourage Editcountitis? Or might it discourage it? Vorbee (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Becoming a 'New Page Patroller' for the sole purpose of being able to more easily increase your edit count by correcting typos and grammar and spelling errors." Might I suggest that this is a good thing to do? It sort of seemed out of place on the list. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help !!! I need a cure !!! I always have 10 windows open on the editcount. Dr Salvus (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just as Wikipedia editors sometimes edit solely for a number, do not do things outside of Wikipedia just for the score. Do it for others sake. 184.19.98.82 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There can be another type: when one tries to hit an edit number milestone (e. g. making edit #2,147,483,648, or the multiple of the nearest ten million, etc.). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I- I- uhh, I share symptoms....

"Obsessive edit-counting disorder" or OECD. :))

And that's one more edit for yours truly. Not that one is counting, of course.

Oops, better leave a typu here, so I can come back later to correct it... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]