Despite my best intentions, this garnered some suspicion and criticism almost immediately after rollout: suggestions that it recognized quantity instead of quality; that people might 'game' the process by making pointless minor edits, and that the number itself was arbitrary and meaningless—one person might need 1,000 edits to accomplish something that others could do in 100.
I agree... to a degree. Believe me when I say I already considered these variables. In any endeavour there is some level of risk of unintended consequences and failure. I accepted them when I decided to create this award. When it comes to evaluating myself and the things I do, I'm my own most-feared playground bully. I'm relentless, but if I can still stand up again after kicking my own ass, I proceed.
From what I initially surmised and from what I've subsequently observed, these worries didn't matter much.
Where is the value in paranoia? Audit each potential reward recipient, and you've expended a lot of personal time and effort. Suspect everyone that you originally intended to honour, and you've undermined the good of your intentions, insulted the recipients, and embarrassed yourself. Why did you even bother?
Colleagues: I trust you. I respect you. I want to do something to recognize your contributions. By the time you've made it to the list I've already seen your work, experienced how it's made GCPEDIA better, and felt "I want to meet this person, and thank them."
A thousand is an arbitrary level: a tier where I can celebrate you for creating, fixing, and engaging. The number is meaningless, but your involvement, my sentiment, the importance of formal recognition, these mean a lot.