In all fairness I hate that check box, I mark none of my edits as minor,
because I want them all to show up to everyone who wishes to review them,
and marking it as minor hides it from some users, so I'll say minor edit in
the summary, but I'll also atleast vaguely refer to what I did.
On 10/16/07, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/16/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/10/2007, RLS <evendell(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/15/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Now now. Let's be fair: it *could* have been a null edit.
> >
> > If a "null edit" is what I think it is then shouldn't the summary
be
> > "didn't make a change"?
>
> I think the point is "made a change" tells us it *wasn't* a null edit.
:)
Indeed. The summary contained 1 bit (as in, binary digit) of
information. Not completely useless, but as close as you can get
without being.
I think "minor edit"[1] is beyond useless. I mean, there's a check-box
for saying that.
[1] e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rypin_County&diff=prev&ol…
—C.W.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
-Brock