On Oct 26, 2006, at 16:27, George Herbert wrote:
On 10/26/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/26/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote:
A touch of logic in the engine that recognised a
diff as a revert of
the previous edit (i.e., identical to the last-but-one revision)
be useful. Then a summary-less revert could be rejected with the
message "edit reversions must be given a summary".
I think making edit-summaries mandatory for anonymous users is an
(Making it mandatory for registered users would have the added
advantage of removing it as an RfA criterion)
I was thinking about making it mandatory for anons, but for
everyone is even
a different spin.
-george william herbert
When this has come up before, the idea of mandatory edit summaries
has been mostly rejected on the grounds that it'd encourage useless
summaries ("adsfdjhsf" etc). However, only certain types of edits
requiring edit summaries might be useful, as for removing large
blocks of text. Edit summaries of "asdfhjshf" vs "remove crap" might
weed out the blankers from the miffed.
Or it might all go to hell.