Carl Witty proposes a feature enhancement:
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 15:26, Elly Waterman wrote:
Indeed, and in addition, I like to switch off the Minor Changes to watch only for the Bigger Changes, by regular users and ALL CHANGES
by
anonymous users, among which unluckily are some vandals. If vandals can in some way click this nonexisting box, they can do their hobby unnoticed, at least by me, and other sysops who work in this way.
If people don't like removing the "minor edit" box for anonymous
users,
how about this?
- Put the "minor edit" box back
- Have 3 states for "Recent Changes": show all edits, hide minor changes, hide minor changes from logged-in users
This should satisfy everybody at (I assume) a fairly small cost in software effort.
(I actually like not having the "minor edit" box as an anonymous user;
it helps me remember to log in!)
Let's hear some "me too" and/or "no way" posts on this one!
Ed Poor Developer
All right: Me too. (AND there's too much quoted text in this posting. But at least it's clear what I'm agreeing with.)
It's one more little set of compilcations and bells and whistles and config options, but I vote to overlook that.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:52:33 UTC, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Carl Witty proposes a feature enhancement: ...
If people don't like removing the "minor edit" box for anonymous
users,
how about this?
- Put the "minor edit" box back
- Have 3 states for "Recent Changes": show all edits, hide minor changes, hide minor changes from logged-in users
This should satisfy everybody at (I assume) a fairly small cost in software effort.
(I actually like not having the "minor edit" box as an anonymous user;
it helps me remember to log in!)
Let's hear some "me too" and/or "no way" posts on this one!
Ed Poor Developer
Frankly, I can't see the point of having a minor changes setting. Far too often significant changes are listed as minor, and minor changes as significant. Often this occurs by accident. Other times, it's someone hiding their actions. There also seems to be no universal agreement on what kind of change is "minor".
So, I ignore the "minor change" indication on recent changes and elsewhere (though I do try to mark my edits appropriately). The feature could disappear entirely, and I'd only be pleased.
Rich Holton (a.k.a. Anthropos)
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Carl Witty proposes a feature enhancement:
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 15:26, Elly Waterman wrote:
Indeed, and in addition, I like to switch off
the Minor Changes to
watch only for the Bigger Changes, by regular
users and ALL CHANGES by
anonymous users, among which unluckily are some
vandals. If vandals
can in some way click this nonexisting box, they
can do their hobby
unnoticed, at least by me, and other sysops who
work in this way.
If people don't like removing the "minor edit" box
for anonymous users,
how about this?
- Put the "minor edit" box back
- Have 3 states for "Recent Changes": show all
edits, hide minor
changes, hide minor changes from logged-in
users
This should satisfy everybody at (I assume) a
fairly small cost in
software effort.
(I actually like not having the "minor edit" box
as an anonymous user;
it helps me remember to log in!)
Let's hear some "me too" and/or "no way" posts on this one!
Ed Poor Developer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
As Anthropos said, I would also have no problem to disable this feature (minor changes) completely. I also never pay attention to that thing.
But, To some users the minor changes seem useful. I would say to keep this feature and improve it.
So, I agree with Carl Witty.
For the future, we can also do this: A lot of checkboxes (NOT option boxes) under the edit summary textbox which will include: X Spelling/Grammar Fix X Copyedit, same meaning X New content X Factual correction X NPOV editing X Removal of unnecessary info X Link correction X Addition of new wikilinks or external links X Major rewrite
how do you think?
Of course this requires more development effort. So that's why I said "for the future".
--Optim
--- Rich Holton rich_holton@yahoo.com wrote:
Frankly, I can't see the point of having a minor changes setting. Far too often significant changes are listed as minor, and minor changes as significant. Often this occurs by accident. Other times, it's someone hiding their actions. There also seems to be no universal agreement on what kind of change is "minor".
So, I ignore the "minor change" indication on recent changes and elsewhere (though I do try to mark my edits appropriately). The feature could disappear entirely, and I'd only be pleased.
Rich Holton (a.k.a. Anthropos)
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Carl Witty proposes a feature enhancement:
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 15:26, Elly Waterman
wrote:
Indeed, and in addition, I like to switch
off
the Minor Changes to
watch only for the Bigger Changes, by
regular
users and ALL CHANGES by
anonymous users, among which unluckily
are some
vandals. If vandals
can in some way click this nonexisting
box, they
can do their hobby
unnoticed, at least by me, and other
sysops who
work in this way.
If people don't like removing the "minor
edit" box
for anonymous users,
how about this?
- Put the "minor edit" box back
- Have 3 states for "Recent Changes": show
all
edits, hide minor
changes, hide minor changes from
logged-in
users
This should satisfy everybody at (I assume)
a
fairly small cost in
software effort.
(I actually like not having the "minor
edit" box
as an anonymous user;
it helps me remember to log in!)
Let's hear some "me too" and/or "no way"
posts on
this one!
Ed Poor Developer
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
At 09:59 PM 1/27/04 -0800, Optim wrote:
As Anthropos said, I would also have no problem to disable this feature (minor changes) completely. I also never pay attention to that thing.
But, To some users the minor changes seem useful. I would say to keep this feature and improve it.
So, I agree with Carl Witty.
For the future, we can also do this: A lot of checkboxes (NOT option boxes) under the edit summary textbox which will include: X Spelling/Grammar Fix X Copyedit, same meaning
Copyediting is more than spelling/grammar fixing. It generally means editing for clarity, and for correct choice of words, not just for whether those words are spelled correctly. If we're going to have a checkbox for that, let's not label it incorrectly.
X New content X Factual correction X NPOV editing X Removal of unnecessary info X Link correction X Addition of new wikilinks or external links X Major rewrite
how do you think?
I suspect that the sum of this is overly complicated, however, and that people won't use them consistently, and most people won't use them at all. I'd rather just keep typing "Copyed" or "attempting to NPOV" when those are appropriate to what I've done.
On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 05:39, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
At 09:59 PM 1/27/04 -0800, Optim wrote:
As Anthropos said, I would also have no problem to disable this feature (minor changes) completely. I also never pay attention to that thing.
But, To some users the minor changes seem useful. I would say to keep this feature and improve it.
So, I agree with Carl Witty.
For the future, we can also do this: A lot of checkboxes (NOT option boxes) under the edit summary textbox which will include: X Spelling/Grammar Fix X Copyedit, same meaning
Copyediting is more than spelling/grammar fixing. It generally means editing for clarity, and for correct choice of words, not just for whether those words are spelled correctly. If we're going to have a checkbox for that, let's not label it incorrectly.
I interpreted "Copyedit, same meaning" as "I reworded the article without changing the meaning" (agreeing with your description of copyediting).
Carl Witty
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Optim wrote:
As Anthropos said, I would also have no problem to disable this feature (minor changes) completely. I also never pay attention to that thing.
But, To some users the minor changes seem useful. I would say to keep this feature and improve it.
Due to abuse of this feature in the past by other contributors, I tend to use this feature only when I could justify the change as a minor change (e.g., typos, spelling). Even a format change might be considered by some as a significant change.
So, I agree with Carl Witty.
For the future, we can also do this: A lot of checkboxes (NOT option boxes) under the edit summary textbox which will include: X Spelling/Grammar Fix X Copyedit, same meaning X New content X Factual correction X NPOV editing X Removal of unnecessary info X Link correction X Addition of new wikilinks or external links X Major rewrite
how do you think?
Of course this requires more development effort. So that's why I said "for the future".
About the only options you omitted from your list (exmpting specific reasons for an edit, such as the humorous example, "Genghis Khan never conquered St. Louis") that I've used were "typo", "fixing my mistake", & "formatting".
I've seen a number of variations on "disambiguating link" from other contributors, some abbreviated to the point I didn't know what they were talking about.
Geoff