Actually, I agree that there's no need to make the poor editor's life harder.
The latest proposal on the VP was to auto-fill the summary box with
some of the text of the edit... perhaps prefaced by a string that
makes it clear that it is an auto-summary (so you can still tell it is
a 'newbie', if that's what no summary told you before). This simply
lets more information about the edit drift up to the RC and history
views. This conceptual change is about improving the density of
information provided by those views, not about forcing people to do
anything.
SJ
On 5/5/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/05, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
The more restrictions you put into place, the more you will find people
reluctant to do something for you. When it is ESSENTIAL that you get
specific information, you make it mandatory. But if this summary is a
good idea, it is a much better idea to have compulsory license info with
digital content. We do not even do that. Pictures without license info
are deleted and some wonderfull people do a lot of good work to get this
info. The extended descripton box is a lifesaver, it allows you to add
these fields during upload time :)
There are already those that blindly revert many changes made by
people they don't know with robot like efficiency.
If we make edit summaries mandatory, we'll just cause newbies to make
something us... and as a result have less ability to discern
experienced edits from new editors.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
+sj+
_ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]