On Oct 26, 2006, at 16:27, George Herbert wrote:
On 10/26/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/26/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@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@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.