Actually, I agree that there's no need to make the poor editor's life harder.
The latest proposal on the VP was to auto-fill the summary box with some of the text of the edit... perhaps prefaced by a string that makes it clear that it is an auto-summary (so you can still tell it is a 'newbie', if that's what no summary told you before). This simply lets more information about the edit drift up to the RC and history views. This conceptual change is about improving the density of information provided by those views, not about forcing people to do anything.
SJ
On 5/5/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/05, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The more restrictions you put into place, the more you will find people reluctant to do something for you. When it is ESSENTIAL that you get specific information, you make it mandatory. But if this summary is a good idea, it is a much better idea to have compulsory license info with digital content. We do not even do that. Pictures without license info are deleted and some wonderfull people do a lot of good work to get this info. The extended descripton box is a lifesaver, it allows you to add these fields during upload time :)
There are already those that blindly revert many changes made by people they don't know with robot like efficiency.
If we make edit summaries mandatory, we'll just cause newbies to make something us... and as a result have less ability to discern experienced edits from new editors. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l