-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Moin,
On Tuesday 01 November 2005 20:42, Timwi wrote:
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".
I have to disagree (because I am not opposed to locking comments).
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 consider it a (current) problem, maybe not at wikipedia, but on other wikis.
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
Yes I did. That was intentional. I never said that comment locking is the only solution, but also that comment labeling (like "last edited by") is a method.
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.
I think you misunderstood me. I said that we should improve the discussion page:
#1 with threads etc #2 doing something against falsely labeled comments #2a by locking them #2b OR by labeling them with the last change #2c whatever else we can come up with
You say that you cannot accept improvements on #1 when 2a is implemented and therefore would rather do nothing.
I disagree, for me either 2a OR 2b would be good. But my point is, that no matter what we choose, we should do SOMETHING. E.g. either 2a, 2b or something else should be done, preferable in conjunction with #1 (doesn't make much sense, technically, anyway).
If we can improve the discussion page itself, *and* prevent misrepresentation at the same time, well, that would be great :)
It's really easy.
<flame>Then why wasn't it done already? :-P </flame>
(Yes, that was a joke, laugh, it is funny.)
Best wishes,
Tels
- -- Signed on Wed Nov 2 17:24:39 2005 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
"Any sufficiently rigged demo is indistinguishable from an advanced technology." -- Don Quixote, slashdot guy