[WikiEN-l] Reverting without reading - another example

[niht-hræfn]

On Oct 26, 2006, at 16:27, George Herbert wrote:

> On 10/26/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/26/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>>> A touch of logic in the engine that recognised a diff as a revert of
>>> the previous edit (i.e., identical to the last-but-one revision)  
>>> would
>>> be useful. Then a summary-less revert could be rejected with the
>>> message "edit reversions must be given a summary".
>>
>> I think making edit-summaries mandatory for anonymous users is an
>> excellent idea.
>>
>> (Making it mandatory for registered users would have the added
>> advantage of removing it as an RfA criterion)
>
> Hmm.  Interesting.
>
> I was thinking about making it mandatory for anons, but for  
> everyone is even
> a different spin.
>
> -- 
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com

When this has come up before, the idea of mandatory edit summaries  
has been mostly rejected on the grounds that it'd encourage useless  
summaries ("adsfdjhsf" etc). However, only certain types of edits  
requiring edit summaries might be useful, as for removing large  
blocks of text. Edit summaries of "asdfhjshf" vs "remove crap" might  
weed out the blankers from the miffed.

Or it might all go to hell.

--Keitei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei