On 10/26/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
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".
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.
Copy-and-paste is your friend. Linux copy-and-paste is even better, as you've got *two* clipboard buffers to work from.