Actually, maybe that's unfair... however, I did have to laugh when I saw an edit summary which read, in full, "Made a change."...
On 15/10/2007, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, maybe that's unfair... however, I did have to laugh when I saw an edit summary which read, in full, "Made a change."...
Haha. So concise ;)
On 10/15/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, maybe that's unfair... however, I did have to laugh when I saw an edit summary which read, in full, "Made a change."...
rv no shit Shirlock.
On 2007.10.15 23:45:15 +0100, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com scribbled 4 lines:
Actually, maybe that's unfair... however, I did have to laugh when I saw an edit summary which read, in full, "Made a change."...
Now now. Let's be fair: it *could* have been a null edit.
-- gwern HAARP SRAM" DREO Information Physical II military ERR peter S/
On 16/10/2007, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2007.10.15 23:45:15 +0100, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com scribbled 4 lines:
Actually, maybe that's unfair... however, I did have to laugh when I saw an edit summary which read, in full, "Made a change."...
Now now. Let's be fair: it *could* have been a null edit.
Good point.
On 10/15/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@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"?
On 10/15/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@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. :)
--Darkwind
On 16/10/2007, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@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.
On 10/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/10/2007, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@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&old...
—C.W.
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&old...
He didn't actually check the box, though, so it is useful, just non-optimal.
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:50:34 -0500 From: charlottethewebb@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Most useless edit summary ever?
On 10/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/10/2007, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@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&old...
—C.W.
In all fairness, this is probably a consequence of RFA's culture of "must use 100 percent edit summaries before passing"! People quite often write entirely useless edit summaries, aided by the prompt in Preferences, simply to pass RFA. I know I did. Post RFA, however, I realized that updating articles with edit summaries such as "+info" is beyond banal, so I turned the damn prompt off. Now most of my real contributions are without edit summaries. This is, I think, a good thing. Tasting the forbidden fruit labelled "No edit summary" keeps Wikipedia exciting.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ The next generation of MSN Hotmail has arrived - Windows Live Hotmail http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
On 10/16/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
In all fairness, this is probably a consequence of RFA's culture of "must use 100 percent edit summaries before passing"! People quite often write entirely useless edit summaries, aided by the prompt in Preferences, simply to pass RFA. I know I did. Post RFA, however, I realized that updating articles with edit summaries such as "+info" is beyond banal, so I turned the damn prompt off. Now most of my real contributions are without edit summaries. This is, I think, a good thing. Tasting the forbidden fruit labelled "No edit summary" keeps Wikipedia exciting.
Hehehe. You know, I made a subconscious decision at one point, that if it took more time to think of a decent summary than to make the actual edit, it was a step worth skipping.
—C.W.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/16/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
In all fairness, this is probably a consequence of RFA's culture of "must use 100 percent edit summaries before passing"! People quite often write entirely useless edit summaries, aided by the prompt in Preferences, simply to pass RFA. I know I did. Post RFA, however, I realized that updating articles with edit summaries such as "+info" is beyond banal, so I turned the damn prompt off. Now most of my real contributions are without edit summaries. This is, I think, a good thing. Tasting the forbidden fruit labelled "No edit summary" keeps Wikipedia exciting.
Hehehe. You know, I made a subconscious decision at one point, that if it took more time to think of a decent summary than to make the actual edit, it was a step worth skipping.
Oddly, it takes me about 2s to make some pretty big ESUs ;-) because I keep my form history, almost every ESU can be filled in by me hitting 'g' for 'grammar' or 's' for spelling, and then clicking one of the 20 options that it pops up as suggestions for filling the form with ;-)
S.
On 10/16/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
In all fairness, this is probably a consequence of RFA's culture of "must use 100 percent edit summaries before passing"!
Which of course is possible only if you used edit summaries from jumpstreet (edit number 1) which few people do.
Sometimes I wonder how these RFA "requirements" originated? Who was the first to oppose for lack of edit summaries, who was the first to oppose for no work in project space? These were the ones that the rest of the "voters" joined in on.
It's interesting that sometimes someone tries to start an RFA "requirement" only to get jumped on by the rest of the "voters". Some of these are opposes for "wiki breaks" and "self noms".
On 17/10/2007, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/16/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
In all fairness, this is probably a consequence of RFA's culture of "must use 100 percent edit summaries before passing"!
Which of course is possible only if you used edit summaries from jumpstreet (edit number 1) which few people do.
MathBot only looks at the last 150 major and 150 minor edits, so that isn't actually an issue.
On 10/16/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/16/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how these RFA "requirements" originated? Who was the first to oppose for lack of edit summaries, who was the first to oppose for no work in project space? These were the ones that the rest of the "voters" joined in on.
It's interesting that sometimes someone tries to start an RFA "requirement" only to get jumped on by the rest of the "voters". Some of these are opposes for "wiki breaks" and "self noms".
I would look in early to mid 2005. IIRC, the idea was starting to catch on around the time of my RFA that people SHOULD use edit summaries. But it was still a while before it became something of a requirement.
In all fairness, this is probably a consequence of RFA's culture of "must use 100 percent edit summaries before passing"! People quite often write entirely useless edit summaries, aided by the prompt in Preferences, simply to pass RFA. I know I did. Post RFA, however, I realized that updating articles with edit summaries such as "+info" is beyond banal, so I turned the damn prompt off. Now most of my real contributions are without edit summaries. This is, I think, a good thing. Tasting the forbidden fruit labelled "No edit summary" keeps Wikipedia exciting.
"+info" isn't bad. There are plenty of things you can do to an article which aren't adding information. It would be nice to say what the info was, but that often boils down to typing the diff into the summary box, which is pointless. I find I can write pretty good edit summaries for most mainspace edits without much trouble (/me goes to check contribs to verify that statement... hmmm... almost all my recent edits have been reverts... I need to try actually writing something for a change. Reverts are easy to summarise...).
On 17/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In all fairness, this is probably a consequence of RFA's culture of "must use 100 percent edit summaries before passing"! People quite often write entirely useless edit summaries, aided by the prompt in Preferences, simply to pass RFA. I know I did. Post RFA, however, I realized that updating articles with edit summaries such as "+info" is beyond banal, so I turned the damn prompt off. Now most of my real contributions are without edit summaries. This is, I think, a good thing. Tasting the forbidden fruit labelled "No edit summary" keeps Wikipedia exciting.
"+info" isn't bad. There are plenty of things you can do to an article which aren't adding information. It would be nice to say what the info was, but that often boils down to typing the diff into the summary box, which is pointless. I find I can write pretty good edit summaries for most mainspace edits without much trouble (/me goes to check contribs to verify that statement... hmmm... almost all my recent edits have been reverts... I need to try actually writing something for a change. Reverts are easy to summarise...).
Reverts I tend to put a slightly sarcastic summary on, especially is it's a clear bad joke. Keeps me amused... :)
I would not encourage your doing this. Sarcasm is difficult at best, and can really hurt--and edit summaries are very visible and almost impossible to modify. I know every time I tried even mild sarcasm in any context the recipient has been offended--and I soon learned better--at least I hope I have not relapsed.
The nature of edit summaries is rightly a frequent issues at RfA--not just whether someone is using them or not.
On 10/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In all fairness, this is probably a consequence of RFA's culture of "must use 100 percent edit summaries before passing"! ...
Reverts I tend to put a slightly sarcastic summary on, especially is it's a clear bad joke. Keeps me amused... :)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 17/10/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I would not encourage your doing this. Sarcasm is difficult at best, and can really hurt--and edit summaries are very visible and almost impossible to modify. I know every time I tried even mild sarcasm in any context the recipient has been offended--and I soon learned better--at least I hope I have not relapsed.
The nature of edit summaries is rightly a frequent issues at RfA--not just whether someone is using them or not.
I don't consider RfA an issue to consider...
But the comments there reflect the feelings of many of us about the misuse of edit summaries. I for one will certainly warn anyone who uses sarcasm on contributors. Yes, if it is all clearly part of an undrstood joke, that's another matter. But usually only one party thinks it's funny.
On 10/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/10/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I would not encourage your doing this. Sarcasm is difficult at best, and can really hurt--and edit summaries are very visible and almost impossible to modify. I know every time I tried even mild sarcasm in any context the recipient has been offended--and I soon learned better--at least I hope I have not relapsed.
The nature of edit summaries is rightly a frequent issues at RfA--not just whether someone is using them or not.
I don't consider RfA an issue to consider...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Are you being serious? I use sarcasm constantly, it's how some people communicate. I'd recommend reconsidering warning users who use sarcasm if I were you. It'll be disruptive at best and pointy at worst. Theres a rather easy to see line between preventing personal attacks and you not liking how someone chooses to communicate.
On 10/16/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
But the comments there reflect the feelings of many of us about the misuse of edit summaries. I for one will certainly warn anyone who uses sarcasm on contributors. Yes, if it is all clearly part of an undrstood joke, that's another matter. But usually only one party thinks it's funny.
On 10/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/10/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I would not encourage your doing this. Sarcasm is difficult at best, and can really hurt--and edit summaries are very visible and almost impossible to modify. I know every time I tried even mild sarcasm in any context the recipient has been offended--and I soon learned better--at least I hope I have not relapsed.
The nature of edit summaries is rightly a frequent issues at RfA--not just whether someone is using them or not.
I don't consider RfA an issue to consider...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I used to use sarcasm in edit summaries, but I try not to any more. Sarcasm directed at me in edit summaries has tended to really irritate me, so I figured mine was doing the same. If the sarcasm rises to the level of a personal attack or serious incivility, then yes, a warning is in order. But otherwise it should just be discouraged.
Now as for editors who use LOL, LMFAO, or any other chucklehead acronym in their edit summaries, they should be blocked, and their user pages salted.
Crockspot
On 10/20/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
Are you being serious? I use sarcasm constantly, it's how some people communicate. I'd recommend reconsidering warning users who use sarcasm if I were you. It'll be disruptive at best and pointy at worst. Theres a rather easy to see line between preventing personal attacks and you not liking how someone chooses to communicate.
On 10/16/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
But the comments there reflect the feelings of many of us about the misuse of edit summaries. I for one will certainly warn anyone who uses sarcasm on contributors. Yes, if it is all clearly part of an undrstood joke, that's another matter. But usually only one party thinks it's funny.
On 10/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/10/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I would not encourage your doing this. Sarcasm is difficult at best, and can really hurt--and edit summaries are very visible and almost impossible to modify. I know every time I tried even mild sarcasm in any context the recipient has been offended--and I soon learned better--at least I hope I have not relapsed.
The nature of edit summaries is rightly a frequent issues at
RfA--not
just whether someone is using them or not.
I don't consider RfA an issue to consider...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Brock _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/22/07, crock spot crockspot@gmail.com wrote:
Now as for editors who use LOL, LMFAO, or any other chucklehead acronym in their edit summaries, they should be blocked, and their user pages salted.
STFU (sorry, couldn't resist). For what it's worth, my punishments have more or less been paid in advance.
Seriously though, I see what you're saying. "HTH HAND" is one that did annoy the hell out of me. It's redundant anyway. If somebody is not "happy to help" someone, they wouldn't have bothered doing so. Plus if I do successfully "have a nice day" it will be because I managed to keep from thinking about how the day was actually going, so don't remind me.
Plus polite-ism coupled with brevity usually reads as sarcasm (which puts us a little bit closer to the original topic, but not much).
—C.W.
About 2 or three times a month, though, I revert vandalism with the term 'Funny, but...no.'
Because though I *do* take vandalism seriously, some of it does indeed make me giggle. From time to time ;-)
S.
David Goodman wrote:
I would not encourage your doing this. Sarcasm is difficult at best, and can really hurt--and edit summaries are very visible and almost impossible to modify. I know every time I tried even mild sarcasm in any context the recipient has been offended--and I soon learned better--at least I hope I have not relapsed.
The nature of edit summaries is rightly a frequent issues at RfA--not just whether someone is using them or not.
On 10/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In all fairness, this is probably a consequence of RFA's culture of "must use 100 percent edit summaries before passing"! ...
Reverts I tend to put a slightly sarcastic summary on, especially is it's a clear bad joke. Keeps me amused... :)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 18/10/2007, Stephanie M. Clarkson thespian@sleepingcat.com wrote:
About 2 or three times a month, though, I revert vandalism with the term 'Funny, but...no.'
I tend to use "funny, but inappropriate".
On 10/17/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
In all fairness, this is probably a consequence of RFA's culture of "must use 100 percent edit summaries before passing"! People quite often write entirely useless edit summaries, aided by the prompt in Preferences, simply to pass RFA. I know I did. Post RFA, however, I realized that updating articles with edit summaries such as "+info" is beyond banal, so I turned the damn prompt off. Now most of my real contributions are without edit summaries. This is, I think, a good thing. Tasting the forbidden fruit labelled "No edit summary" keeps Wikipedia exciting.
Hmm, I got into the habit when I was considering submitting an RfA. I think on the whole it's a good habit, even if I tend to use the same summaries over and over: "create stub", "rd", "recat", "tyop", "c/e". I find it frustrating when people (particularly anons) don't write anything, as it makes it much harder to gauge intent. When someone changes a population figure with no summary, I suspect vandalism. A simple "update pop" would help me believe they're acting in good faith.
Steve
Quoting Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com:
On 10/17/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
In all fairness, this is probably a consequence of RFA's culture of "must use 100 percent edit summaries before passing"! People quite often write entirely useless edit summaries, aided by the prompt in Preferences, simply to pass RFA. I know I did. Post RFA, however, I realized that updating articles with edit summaries such as "+info" is beyond banal, so I turned the damn prompt off. Now most of my real contributions are without edit summaries. This is, I think, a good thing. Tasting the forbidden fruit labelled "No edit summary" keeps Wikipedia exciting.
Hmm, I got into the habit when I was considering submitting an RfA. I think on the whole it's a good habit, even if I tend to use the same summaries over and over: "create stub", "rd", "recat", "tyop", "c/e". I find it frustrating when people (particularly anons) don't write anything, as it makes it much harder to gauge intent. When someone changes a population figure with no summary, I suspect vandalism. A simple "update pop" would help me believe they're acting in good faith.
Steve
One thing about the whole RfA culture I've had trouble understanding is that the assertion that edit summaries are more important in major than minor changes. Even if an editor is an editor I trust and work well with, if an edit is major I'm likely to look at it in detail. But if an editor I trust marks an edit as minor and I'm even vaguely familiar with the editor I generally will not. So keeping track of what is happening in the minor edits is helpful. Furthermore, many minor edits it isn't always obvious what change was made. For example, if someones replace a comma with a period it is hard to see that change just looking at the difs, even with the helpful colored differences displayed. However, an edit summary of "swap comma with period in 2nd sentence" or something like that makes it much easier to follow.
On 10/18/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
One thing about the whole RfA culture I've had trouble understanding is that the assertion that edit summaries are more important in major than minor changes.
If an edit is truly "major", then the changes will probably be too numerous to explain in the edit summary, so the cynical conclusion is that any comment would be considered inadequate. Ergo, might as well leave it blank.
—C.W.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
For example, if someones replace a comma with a period it is hard to see that change just looking at the difs, even with the helpful colored differences displayed. However, an edit summary of "swap comma with period in 2nd sentence" or something like that makes it much easier to follow.
Does it make sense to give a 37 keystroke explanation for a minor one-keystroke change?
Ec
On 18/10/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
For example, if someones replace a comma with a period it is hard to see that change just looking at the difs, even with the helpful colored differences displayed. However, an edit summary of "swap comma with period in 2nd sentence" or something like that makes it much easier to follow.
Does it make sense to give a 37 keystroke explanation for a minor one-keystroke change?
You could go for something like "punc" - at least them people know what to look for in the diff.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 18/10/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
For example, if someones replace a comma with a period it is hard to see that change just looking at the difs, even with the helpful colored differences displayed. However, an edit summary of "swap comma with period in 2nd sentence" or something like that makes it much easier to follow.
Does it make sense to give a 37 keystroke explanation for a minor one-keystroke change?
You could go for something like "punc" - at least them people know what to look for in the diff.
As I see it checking the minor edit box when appropriate is an edit summary.
Ec
Quoting Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
For example, if someones replace a comma with a period it is hard to see that change just looking at the difs, even with the helpful colored differences displayed. However, an edit summary of "swap comma with period in 2nd sentence" or something like that makes it much easier to follow.
Does it make sense to give a 37 keystroke explanation for a minor one-keystroke change?
Ec
Possibly not. However, arguable it saves everyone time in the long run. If every editor looked through every edit on their watchlist then it would certainly save time. Obviously not many do that (I'm far from that. I should probably stop trying to kid myself and just pare the list down). And I suspect that a the time use for any substantial study of watchlist watching habits would greatly exceed the small amount of time saved by this practice even if it does in fact save time. So the sort answer is no. It probably doesn't make much sense.
On 10/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Does it make sense to give a 37 keystroke explanation for a minor one-keystroke change?
Maybe - it would be a fallacy to assume that it doesn't. Think of these scenarios: - Your 3 second change with no edit summary causes 10 other editors to spend 5 seconds each checking your change. Could be avoided by spending 5 seconds typing a summary. - Your 3 second change causes a flamewar because someone thinks you're picking on them. - Your 3 second change gets reverted, because the next editor can't understand it and think you're vandalising.
etc etc.
For every change you make, there are reactions taking place that you may not be aware of.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 10/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Does it make sense to give a 37 keystroke explanation for a minor one-keystroke change?
Maybe - it would be a fallacy to assume that it doesn't. Think of these scenarios:
- Your 3 second change with no edit summary causes 10 other editors to spend
5 seconds each checking your change. Could be avoided by spending 5 seconds typing a summary.
Excellent. It just shows that people are checking things. I would likely have checked the minor change box, and that in itself _IS_ a sufficient edit summary in such circumstances.
- Your 3 second change causes a flamewar because someone thinks you're
picking on them.
That's their problem.
- Your 3 second change gets reverted, because the next editor can't
understand it and think you're vandalising.
If he thinks that a minor correction in punctuation is vandalising, maybe he needs to revise his notion of vandalism.
For every change you make, there are reactions taking place that you may not be aware of.
And overreactions.
Ec
On 10/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
- Your 3 second change causes a flamewar because someone thinks you're
picking on them.
That's their problem.
It's Wikipedia's problem. If your 3 second contribution causes an hour of wasted editors' time, it has a net productivity of -59 minutes and -57 seconds. That's a lot worse than any vandalism.
Steve
On 10/21/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
- Your 3 second change causes a flamewar because someone thinks you're
picking on them.
That's their problem.
It's Wikipedia's problem. If your 3 second contribution causes an hour of wasted editors' time, it has a net productivity of -59 minutes and -57 seconds.
Productivity is not measured in minutes.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 10/20/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
- Your 3 second change causes a flamewar because someone thinks you're
picking on them.
That's their problem.
It's Wikipedia's problem. If your 3 second contribution causes an hour of wasted editors' time, it has a net productivity of -59 minutes and -57 seconds. That's a lot worse than any vandalism.
Only the most enormous bad faith would stick all that drama on a simple punctuation or spelling change. Even if that single one character change leads to someone imagining that they have been picked on it is totally unrealistic for any editor to be on pins and needles lest someone be offended by a clearly minor change.
Sure, it's not uncommon for someone to try to deflect attention from a significant change by marking it minor, but that just means that as many eyes should be on minor changes as on others, whether or not there is a summary. I have no intention to start writing long descriptions for such minor changes, whether Steve likes it or not.
Ec
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@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/10/2007, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@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&old...
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/20/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
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...
Doesn't it hide them only from those who don't wish to review them?
On 10/20/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/20/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
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...
Doesn't it hide them only from those who don't wish to review them?
My watchlist hid minor edits from me till I clicked show minor edits. Took me a while to realize they weren't showing up after I learned how to use the watchlist a couple years ago, so offhand, I'd say 'not always'
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/20/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
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.
In all fairness, wouldn't you then do a disservice to those who have clearly opted to "hide minor edits" (not the default mode) in the recentchanges or watchlist? Or should the button for that feature say "ignore minor edits by normal people who properly mark them as such". :p
—C.W.
On 10/20/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
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.
In all fairness, wouldn't you then do a disservice to those who have clearly opted to "hide minor edits" (not the default mode) in the recentchanges or watchlist? Or should the button for that feature say "ignore minor edits by normal people who properly mark them as such". :p
—C.W.
Touche. Although as I said to Anthony, I don't believe that is the default, either that or I accidently changed it before I knew what I was doing and it was an epiphany to turn it back on :) It's been a long time since I made it show minor edits that I could be mistaken.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/20/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
Touche. Although as I said to Anthony, I don't believe that is the default, either that or I accidently changed it before I knew what I was doing and it was an epiphany to turn it back on :) It's been a long time since I made it show minor edits that I could be mistaken.
You could test this by creating a brand new account (and optionally watchlist a handful of strategic pages with it).
—C.W.
On 10/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/10/2007, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@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.
Actually, the software won't save if the content is exactly identical to the previous version. So, "made a change" is a prerequisite for saving (even if the change is as simple as playing with the amount of whitespace in an article). In other words, the edit summary still contained no information.
-Robert Rohde
Actually, the software won't save if the content is exactly identical to the previous version. So, "made a change" is a prerequisite for saving (even if the change is as simple as playing with the amount of whitespace in an article). In other words, the edit summary still contained no information.
Seems you're right... so it is completely useless.
On 10/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, the software won't save if the content is exactly identical to the previous version. So, "made a change" is a prerequisite for saving (even if the change is as simple as playing with the amount of whitespace in an article). In other words, the edit summary still contained no information.
Seems you're right... so it is completely useless.
Kind of like this thread.
On 16/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, the software won't save if the content is exactly identical to the previous version. So, "made a change" is a prerequisite for saving (even if the change is as simple as playing with the amount of whitespace in an article). In other words, the edit summary still contained no information.
Seems you're right... so it is completely useless.
Kind of like this thread.
This thread is fun - it doesn't have to be useful. (You could argue that causing enjoyment is a use.)
On 15/10/2007, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, maybe that's unfair... however, I did have to laugh when I saw an edit summary which read, in full, "Made a change."...
The other day I saw a change described as "Added a word.". Yes, but /which/ word?
The other day I saw a change described as "Added a word.". Yes, but /which/ word?
If you want to know which word, you can look at the diff. What I'd want to know is *why* they added it. "Added missing word", perhaps - then you know it was a mistake the word wasn't there before. "Added word to clarify", "Added word to disguise the fact that my employer eats babies", etc. would be useful information.
My favorite funny/ironic edit summary so far is one that is on Gamaliel's user page:
"Don't revert a good faith edit, cocksucker!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Scarborough&diff=prev&...
Crockspot