Erik Moeller wrote:
its interesting
how upset people have gotten over this minor changes issue
without really making any effort to explain it to me
how about an option to have the minor changes box checked on default?
Good idea for copyeditors, and reasonably simple to do, if nobody else wants
to do it, I can implement it.
I don't think it's such a good idea. It makes it too easy for a person
to sneak in a POV change without anybody noticing. Sometimes adding the
three-letter word "not" at some place in an article can substantially
change a meaning, yet because it's only a single three-letter there are
people who would consider that minor.
Also, free of charge, here's a guide for stopping
people from getting upset
about what you do:
1) Stop being confrontational and silly. We don't need to take ourselves too
seriously, but the project itself is not a playground.
2) Apologize to the list for your past behavior of category 1). Apologies
are something only mature people are capable of, and therefore always a good
demonstration.
3) Try to communicate your ideas in a reasonable fashion, arguing logically
and not emotionally. Be willing to compromise. Be willing to learn.
These are all good points. Unfortunately, when Lir made a series of
minor changes to an article and saved each one separately, her critics
could only respond with a whole lot of attitude thrown in. The
specifics of the criticism were likely warranted; the attitude was not.
There was absolutely no need to refer to threats of banning just
because she caused too many entries on the Recent Changes page.
Some of her views have been a little strange, and at times she may have
insisted a little too strongly about those views. I did look at the
"Minoa" issue where I didn't feel knowledgeable enough to voice an opinion.
As I understand it, she was criticized there for using questionable
references on the internet as sources to back opinion. That problem is
not really about Lir; she represented only one small manifestation of a
far more serious problem. Those who argue that since Option A receives
100,000 hits on Google, while Option B receives only 1,000 hits, Option
A must be a superior option are also adding to the problem.
The much more serious problem has to to with the reliability in general
of internet information. Educational tradition has been that
questioning information sources is not encouraged before a student has
reached university level, and even there it is a relatively recent
phenomenon. I would venture so far as to say that schools have openly
discouraged any kind of critical thinking; that produces a more
compliant citizenry.
At 14 (if that really is Lir's age) she may not yet have acquired the
skills related to the evaluation of sources. For many it takes a
several failing term papers at the university level before they get the
point. The prospect of people relying on internet sources is really scary.
Eclecticology