|From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
|X-Accept-Language: en-us
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
|Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:52:06 -0800
|
|Oliver Pereira wrote:
|
|>Is there an agreed definition of what is or is not a "minor edit"? I
|>haven't been able to find one, so I've just been guessing. I suspect that
|>most people are just guessing. So if it's such a big deal to people,
|>perhaps there should be clearer guidelines on what should or should not be
|>marked as a minor edit. Perhaps the "minor edit" box should have a link by
|>it, with the text "What is a minor edit?", linking to a page of such
|>guidelines.
|>
|I shudder at the thought of having yet another rule. Ultimately,
|people's common sense should prevail. If I'm reviewing changes to an
|article that interests me as an editor, I'll look at all the changes
|both major and minor. If I'm reviewing it as a reader, I'll stick to
|the major changes.
|
|Eclecticology
|
|
If you don't think it's worth anyone's while to know about the edit,
it's minor.
Tom P.
O88