Steve Bennett wrote:
On 10/19/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
Does it make sense to give a 37 keystroke
explanation for a minor
one-keystroke change?
Maybe - it would be a fallacy to assume that it doesn't. Think of these
scenarios:
- Your 3 second change with no edit summary causes 10 other editors to spend
5 seconds each checking your change. Could be avoided by spending 5 seconds
typing a summary.
Excellent. It just shows that people are checking things. I would
likely have checked the minor change box, and that in itself _IS_ a
sufficient edit summary in such circumstances.
- Your 3 second change causes a flamewar because
someone thinks you're
picking on them.
That's their problem.
- Your 3 second change gets reverted, because the next
editor can't
understand it and think you're vandalising.
If he thinks that a minor correction in punctuation is vandalising,
maybe he needs to revise his notion of vandalism.
For every change you make, there are reactions taking
place that you may not
be aware of.
And overreactions.
Ec