On Nov 13, 2014 7:09 PM, "John" <phoenixoverride(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Issues arise in the fact that malicious editors can abuse it after the
initial review has been done. Or you can run into cases where offensive
material is added attacking another editor, so editor B reports the issue
and before anyone has a chance to review it editor A changes it back to
something innocent. (rinse repeat for a while before A finally gets
blocked, but meanwhile B is taking the brunt of abuse until an admin
catches on) and there is no way of proving what an edit was at any given
time.
The biggest thing that you need to realize is that regardless of the
intent
of something, it will be abused, how and to what
degree can be controlled.
Given that just about everything in mediawiki has a paper trail,
(mediawiki
keeps logs for all actions, some are just not visible
without specific
rights) introducing a feature that doesnt is not a good idea.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Jon Robson <jdlrobson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is a great idea and has always baffled me that you can't.
>
> I'm also a little confused by James comment. Maintaining an edit
> history of edit summaries seems overkill. As I understand it edit
> summaries are for aiding other editors.
>
> If we are worried about losing important information, maybe only the
> original editor and trusted editors with certain privileges should be
> able to edit them.
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 2014 12:45 PM, "Nathan" <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I can see it being useful in two circumstances:
> >>
> >> 1) As part of the oversight right, in order to edit an edit summary
> > without
> >> hiding the entire revision
> >> 2) A right of a user to edit their own edit summaries, if the edit
> summary
> >> is blank
> >>
> >> Since it's possible and at least some people are interested in it, I
> don't
> >> see the downside of making it available in MediaWiki even if most
> > Wikimedia
> >> projects might not use it.
> >>
> >
> > That sounds more like a good argument for making it an extension,
rather
> > than a core feature.
> >
> > --bawolff
> >
Wow, that escalated quickly. How did we go from "hey, what's the deal with
this?" To YOURE BURNING THE WIKI in a few posts?