On 13 November 2014 16:03, Helder . <helder.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Derric Atzrott
<datzrott(a)alizeepathology.com> wrote:
Indeed -
I am somewhat surprised by James's firm opposition.
I tend to agree with James on this one in that if the edit summaries
are to be modified then they need a revision history.
Indeed; that's the core tenet of how MediaWiki is designed. All changes
are open. All changes are logged. Al(most al)l logs are visible. Changes
can't be redacted, except by super-power-users (sysops) who understand what
they're doing. Changes can't be removed from the records, except by
super-ultra-mega-power users (developers) who have database access and have
a really good reason.
Typos in edit summary are fixed by releasing an errata
corrige in a
subsequent dummy edit.
I question whether or not the ability to change edit summaries is
really a needed feature though. I would prefer the approach that
Nemo recommend of making a dummy edit.
This would work a little better if we had
the feature requested on
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33943
(Grouping edit history). But I don't see a reason against
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13937
(Correcting edit summaries (if own, last, & recent))
Thanks for those links. However, for a change like this, I would expect (at
a minimum) a
MediaWiki.org RfC. A bug isn't sufficient discussion, really.
J.
--
James D. Forrester
Product Manager, Editing
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
jforrester(a)wikimedia.org | @jdforrester