Timwi <timwi@...> writes:
>
>
> > I do think these are two seperate points:
> >
> > * how to improve the discussion pages on a wiki
> > * whether each author own his/her comment or not.
>
> But the point is that the answer to the second influences whether the
> solution proposed for the first is seen as an "improvement". I feel that
> if the ability to edit other people's comments is taken away from me, I
> can't label it an "improvement".
>
You may not label it an improvement, but there are others who definately
would.
> > Discussions, OTOH, also involve personal opinions. Danger lies ahead
when
> > the opionion can be changed, but is still labeled (or signed, if you
> > wish) with the original authors name.
>
> We already have this "danger", and we've had it since the beginning of
> Phase II, and it has not turned out to be a great problem, so this is
> not an argument.
>
I've had people complain to me about moving their comments around on my LDAP
patch's page on meta. I erased one person's edit because it was a
non-working
solution, and had a complaint about that.
Just because you don't think this is a problem, doesn't mean it isn't a
problem.
I can definately see lawsuits based upon this. This is definately a valid
argument.
> > Just imagine that this discussion we have is on a wiki, this is the
latest
> > edition (you would need to check the history, aka mailing list archives
> > to see the full revisions) and it contained:
> >
> > On Tuesday 01 November 2005 17:36, Timwi wrote:
> >>>Any model, if over applied, is harmful.
> >>Agree.
> >>I am strongly in favour of LiquidThreads.
> >
> > See the danger?
>
> A fallacious argument by false dilemma, or by lack of imagination, or
> whatever you wanna call it. You almost provided the answer to this one
> yourself:
>
> > (for the record, the above quote of three lines was
> > written/shortened by me, not Timwi).
>
> And that is what it should say.
>
> COMMENT #328645 by [[User:Timwi]]
>
> Agree. I am strongly in favour of LiquidThreads.
> (This comment was last edited by [[User:Tels]] <date/time>.)
>
> If <date/time> is a minute ago, I better check the diff. If it was an
> hour ago, I can probably assume that your edit was harmless.
>
> Therefore, again, your "danger" is not an argument against the ability
> to edit comments.
>
Why can you assume that the edit was harmless? During katrina, I had no
internet
access for weeks. If someone maliciously edited some of my comments during
that
time, would you assume that what was there is actually what I wrote?
Ignoring catastrophies like a large blackout, or a hurricane: say someone
goes
on vacation, or simply hasn't checked his discussions recently, or if an
article's discussion page hasn't been updated in a long while, and someone
stops
checking it as often; in these cases, vandalism may go unnoticed for QUITE a
while, where readers may be seeing the vandalised version for the entire
time.
In this aspect, there is "danger" in others editing comments.
> > If we can improve the discussion page itself, *and* prevent
> > misrepresentation at the same time, well, that would be great :)
>
> It's really easy.
>
> Timwi
>
I think the original idea of LiquidThreads is a good solution for the
problem. I
don't believe the implementation would be easy though ;).
Ryan Lane