On 13 November 2014 16:03, Helder . helder.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Derric Atzrott datzrott@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.