George Herbert wrote:
On 10/26/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Earle Martin wrote:
On 26/10/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
It's a nice idea, but after a few weeks of everyone being good about it, I predict seeing lots and lots of edit summaries consisting of "."
That should be a warnable offense.
Why not make blank edit summaries a "warnable offense", then? It'd be essentially the same thing.
A lot more technically friendly if the software requires them to enter "something" first; random people who aren't Wikipedia-familiar will understand a message popping up with a little paperclip saying "I've noticed you didn't enter an edit summary, these are important and required before we can enter the updated data".
I still prefer human friendly to technically friendly. The pop-up is an encouragement to add any random entry. The summarries are important in many cases, but it would be madness to require them in all cases. If, for example, I move an article because of a small spelling change in the title, I will try to follow that by cleaning up the links. There may be 20 or 30 such links; I do not accept the need to generate a long series of edit summaries when those summaries are longer than the edits themselves.
Ec