Not a fan of other folk editing my posts

Meta
#1

In the one that just happened, one of the leaders addressed a typo in some sample TiddlyWiki code in a recent post of mine.

That’s kind of cool in some ways, but I’m really not a fan of leaders editing posts by members, however well-intended/benign those edits.

Nor am I a fan of anybody editing their own posts “substantially”. That can make the subsequent pre-edit replies, i.e. a particular thread of discussion within the broader conversation, disjointed/non-sensical.

I used to be a fan of “edit” in Google Groups. Since Google Groups has gotten rid of “edit”, I’m crossed-over into thinking edit is bad.

In the sense of “something that was once there no longer is, what the hell?”

Yeah, I vote to get rid of edit. For all of the good it can provide, I can’t stand the potential bad.

Weird Rights To Edit Titles?
#2

That right there is probably the thing that kills my participation in this forum.

A thread of discussion can serve as documentation, but it is also a record of conversation and a timeline of thoughts. Nothing should be tampered with (i.e. edited.)

Want to correct something? Then post the correction in the thread of discussion.

Of course, I do accept that I’m funny that way. I can’t fight my quirky, so I might as well embrace it.

#3

Charlie

I think is fair that in most cases we are the only ones to edit our own posts as a rule. I have had a glaring misspelling in one title corrected that I am aware of. Which was fine for me but I would not like too much being done.

However in Google unless you sent a reply, those using only email would not see the changes.

I do however feel there is value if the author can edit their own post at least in the short term so we can fix seriouse errors. I have a bad habit of saying can when I mean can’t which can reverse my meaning.

One exception to long term edits in my view should be the top post by the original author because they can edit the post and document the outcomes. Then in future such question and answer posts need only have the top post read unless you have a deeper interest.

Also if the top post is made into a wiki and we invite others to edit we have a collaboration method of great value. I would not like to see this lost.

Otherwise as you say I think editing others content should be avoided and only corrections applied not larger edits unless it’s the top post.

What do you think?

#4

I’m not a fan of having someone else edit my text, no matter how well-meaning. That sort of thing should be reserved for preventing inflammatory language, spam, abuse, etc.

But I am a fan of being able to edit my own text. Perhaps it is my own aging disability, but these days I will look down at what my fingers have typed, and see something completely different than what I had intended!

There’s also the principle of “the right to forget”. That is, you shouldn’t be stuck with something stupid you said for all eternity.

I think (maybe @boris can comment) that the window for editing your own text is temporary. I know on other forums once someone replies to your post your original text is locked-in.

#5

Thought out of nowhere: Sometimes, a typo in itself can provide some unexpected value.

There are, IMO, much better solutions for documenting outcomes than using the top post. A discussion forum is for discussing. Not documenting. Document with something meant for documenting.

Nah, I’m still of the opinion that “edit” should be killed in discussion forums.

For all of your other points, I say we should be in the habit of typing our posts somewhere else, do whatever editing, then copy/paste into a post. Do editing “over there”, then post to publish.

#6

I’m not Boris, but I did have a look at the settings: There are several limits for editing your own posts.

Important: This post contains information about the forum settings. It doesn’t express any opinion. My opinion will follow in second post.

Within 300 seconds aka 5 minutes Users can change a post, without creating a new version of the post.

So all posts are versioned and the versions are publicly visible. eg:

grafik
grafik1066×275 21.7 KB

Everyone can click this “edit button”, which will open the edit history. See the post: [tw5] Auto Linking tags - #2 by pmario … I will try to edit it again, so we can see, how the history can be seen.

  • If more than 100 characters are changed within this 5 minutes, a new version will be created

  • If Members and Regular users change more than 400 chars within 5 minutes a new version will be created

  • New and Basic users and can edit their posts for 1440 min - aka 1 day

    • New version will be created
    • After 1 day editing isn’t possible anymore

  • Members and Regulars can change their posts for 30 days or 43200 minutes :wink:

  • Leaders and Moderators have extended rights, which can be seen at: Understanding Discourse Trust Levels | Blog

  • Leaders can edit any post -

  • Admin can change everything :wink:

2 Likes
#7

Wearing my I.T. hat, I find all of that very cool.

Going to my cognitive challenges, holy frigging yuck.

It is cognitively disconcerting when something that used to be in a specific place is no longer there.

Normal folk can look at a completed puzzle, and still see the picture despite a missing puzzle piece.

I just see the missing puzzle piece and become perturbed by the missing puzzle piece. The picture isn’t there, and it isn’t making sense.

I’m gone into a rabbit hole of scatter-brained/distracted thinking.

There is only so much other folk can accommodate re my challenges, so I tend to only bring up stuff for which I think I might just be the canary in the coalmine.

Things that might not necessarily harm normal folk, but there are signs that something could eventually become a problem for normal folk.

So if I’m a stickler for Google Groups despite all of its warts, it is because it really does a better job for me from a cognitive perspective.

Oh mylanta, do I ever despise the editor in discourse.

That’s it.

Since there are just way too many things I’m struggling with here, I say ignore me. I don’t like being the one that puts sticks in the wheels of progress, and I’m just coming off as difficult.

#8

@Charlie_Veniot did @pmario’s editing / versioning explanation address your concerns?

All other moderator actions are fully logged in the system as well, including edits to different system settings.

And as he points out, I’m not the only moderator — you can use @moderators or @staff if you want to catch the attention of someone (or privately message those addresses).

P.S. I edited your post to put it in the #meta category. We can have as many “talking about Discourse” posts as we want, but we should keep it in the Meta category.

#9

I had replied “Holy frigging yuck”

That would be my very wordy (and attempt at self-deprecating humour) of indicating “No”.

That’s okay, I’m tired of being a stick in the wheels when it is all awesome for everybody else.

Great work has been put into this forum. So I bow out.

#10

Charlie,

I am not yet sure I can write in a suitable way for you and others but I am trying.

This thread has being useful,

  • I think we now have some understanding of your perspective and in a sprit of community we can do our best to support you and the diverse membership.
  • I think this thread supports a hands off others content policy for those who can edit others content and only curation categories and minor edits of titles may be open to edits. I think the author should be informed of re-categorisations.
  • It is graceful of you to “take a stand back from your own needs” however I for one will endeavour to support cognitive and physical diversity going forward (I always have in the real world, I may add).

Perhaps a suggestion for those overwhelmed.

As we are all somewhat new to this forum, this team building activity fits nicely with ideas such as team “Storming and Forming” see the text below at this link, that is sufficient to cover the subject. But it is not essential for you to read and/or understand it, only that this is a process that will stabilise.

Also in this new adoption phase, a lot of us are trying to bring life long experience, other forums, knowledge of GG and new discoveries in Discourse together for the benefit of the community. This involves, technical and value judgements, juggling complexity and uncertainty. This “holistic” process is cognitively challenging for anyone. This is not something you need to do if it feels overwhelming, but some of us feel duty bound to support everyone in the community, and in fact get a thrill from the cognitive challenges.

What I am trying to say is;

Please keep expressing your ideas and concerns, but be patient with us all (I am not saying you are not). Perhaps avoid getting wrapped up in the process of adoption yourself, at least until the environment stabilises. Once we all feel more comfortable with the environment, it will be easier for you to critique it.

1 Like
#11
  • I think this thread supports a hands off others content policy for those who can edit others content and only curation of categories and minor edits of titles may be open to edits.

One issue with this: when a post to the GoogleGroup includes TiddlyWiki code examples, and that code contains macro or variable references using << and >> (or < and > if in a filter), then that code does not render properly in Discourse, which treats the content within the < and > as HTML syntax.

For example, in Charlie’s original GoogleGroups post, he wrote:

<$vars dateNow=<<now wYYYY-W0WW-ddd>>>
{{{ [<dateNow>search-replace:[Mon],[1]search-replace:[Tue],[2]search-replace:[Wed],[3]search-replace:[Thu],[4]search-replace:[Fri],[5]search-replace:[Sat],[6]search-replace:[Thu],[7]] }}}
</$vars>

which appeared in Discourse as:

<$vars dateNow=<>>
{{{ [search-replace:[Mon],[1]search-replace:[Tue],[2]search-replace:[Wed],[3]search-replace:[Thu],[4]search-replace:[Fri],[5]search-replace:[Sat],[6]search-replace:[Thu],[7]] }}}
</$vars>

Unfortunately, as you can clearly see, this did not render correctly in Discourse, since the <<now ...>> macro appears as <>, and the <dateNow> variable reference in the filter was completely omitted.

Compounding the problem is the fact that the GoogleGroups category on Discourse is read-only. As such, it falls to those who CAN edit the content (i.e., Leader/Admin trust level) to make “minor edits” to the posted content by adding backtick syntax around the code, so that it is displayed properly here on Discourse.

This problem is, of course, not limited to just Charlie’s posts, but can occur in any GoogleGroups post that is auto-imported to Discourse and on several other occasions I have made minor edits to other imported GoogleGroups posts – taking care not to change any other content – as my only purpose and intent is to make the post minimally readable here on Discourse.

Also note that, up until GoogleGroups completely removed the ability to edit posts, I occasionally made similar minor edits to posts on GoogleGroups, without any complaints (and often with thanks) from the original poster.

My only “offense” was that, in the process of fixing the formatting of Charlie’s post, I also corrected a minor – but nonetheless obvious – “copy/paste” error in his filter syntax, where he had repeated “Thu” when he clearly intended to write “Sun”… an error that he himself later noted in a follow-up post on GoogleGroups. Under most circumstances, this little extra edit would not have been an issue, except perhaps for Charlie’s self-acknowledged discomfort with adapting to Discourse as a whole.

I have had admin/owner status on the TiddlyWiki GoogleGroups for over 16 years, and I take no small pride in that it is somewhat due to my active moderation and encouragement that the group is known for it’s open, positive and exceptionally helpful attitude.

In general, people know that I apply an “egoless” approach to moderation, and I take great care to apply a very light touch when it comes to other people’s posts… and, when I do make such changes, I avoid publicly calling them out, so as to avoid the potential for embarrassment on the part of the original poster.

There is a reason why Discourse refers to these Leader/Admin functions as “trust” levels… and I think that, after 16 years, I have earned that trust. Having said all this, I will, moving forward, refrain from making edits to other’s posts even when it would be of clear benefit to the group, and will “let the chips fall where they may.”

with kindness and respect,
-e

5 Likes
#12

I too apply this approach as much as I can, but I am not so sure how many people understand this. Perhaps we should explain this a little more for those who have not stumbled upon it, let alone understood it?.

In my view because an “egoless” approach is the most healthy way, to collaborate on anything.

Its ok to criticise ideas (or code), in fact essential, but never criticise the person. Taking offence is to be avoided, and intentionally causing offence is wrong. If someone criticises your ideas, consider them as contributing to, helping or testing your ideas (I consider this “generosity to others”). Be prepared to “agree to disagree” if necessary (interestingly this is rarely needed). If we all keep an open mind, the communications remain open and productive.

Egoless programming, An approach to software development based on consensus within a small team. The aim is to produce software that is the product of the team rather than of one or a few individuals. The motivation is to avoid personal identification with output, promote group identification, and thus to make it easier for the team to conduct an objective evaluation of the programs produced.

A Philosophical opinion follows;
Unfortunately such a sensible approach as “egoless” is up against international internet trends of extreme individualism, resulting in “alternative facts” which is in fact an “oxymoron”, facts do not have alternatives, only opinions can have alternatives, most of which will be wrong.

#13

I don’t have problem with the editing, but I also think that it is better do it when it is really necesary. For example, in typos it isn’t really necessary, because they can create feedback that could help to learn something better. Also obvious typos don’t need editing (IHMO). Should not be a problem that someone does a reply fixing the typo.

#14

I think you made the right call since your intent was to restore the text to the way it was originally meant to look, not to create an “improved” version. Especially since the original author may never even see the text on talk. As they say, you can’t please everyone.

But if you have to fix ever bit of code that comes from GG, you’re going to burn out pretty quick.

1 Like
#15

I don’t see the value in preserving typos for posterity, especially when they represent misunderstandings that future visitors could be spared.

There are definitely judgment calls at play in editing others’ posts — but I trust the moderators of this group to exercise good judgment. If, in the future, they don’t exercise good judgment, I’m sure we’ll discuss it and address it here on the forum, as we’re doing with this post.

We use a forum-like system at work, and everyone has access to edit everyone else’s posts. To my knowledge, it’s never been abused (with 30 or so of us using the system). I’ve occasionally spotted errors in UPS tracking numbers or broken links to other issues and dropped into the original posts to fix them. People have done the same to my posts. This is because we’re interested in tracking bugs and collaborating in that particular system — not in keeping a historical record of the incorrect tracking numbers we accidentally typed in on a given day.

We do, however, make it a practice to flag and tag our edits on other people’s posts if they’re anything other than an obvious error correction. For example, I might add a comment that looks like this:

EDIT: We’ve learned some new things since this was posted. See some other thread I’m linking to for more info. — Scott S.

It might be a good policy for mods to include a courtesy note something like that when adding additional context or corrections.

In the case of @EricShulman’s example above, I might draw a (thin) line between correcting the syntax of the original post and correcting the Sun/Thu typo.

It’s hard for me to see any objection to the first edit, as it simply updated the syntax that came from one site so it’s readable on another. This is comparable to migrating content from a markdown-driven forum to an HTML-driven forum and search-replacing the syntax so the post looks the same on the new platform. It’s transparent and functional with no effect on the intent or meaning of the original post.

I also can’t see any benefit in noting the edit has been made. As Eric pointed out, it might seem like the editor is “calling out” the original poster for an honest mistake than can be easily fixed behind the scenes.

The second fix, while innocuous and appreciated, is one where I could see a case for the “hands-off” argument. Though it was an obvious slip of the fingers, it’s easy to imagine a circumstance where even a judicious moderator could accidentally make the wrong call. Perhaps someone is quoting a real-world example with a real-world typo contained within. Perhaps the moderator misread it and missed some nuance. It might be good policy to stop short of this kind of correction.

At the end of the day, I find it useful to remember that a forum is a collaborative publication. It’s not a personal blog or social media account where I can say whatever I want with carte blanche. It’s more like a newspaper where my contributions are subject to the oversight of the editorial staff. The staff aren’t there to censor me, but they are there to make the forum as useful to the community as it can be — and sometimes that involves editing my content for clarity or readability.

Not that there’s anything wrong with Charlie’s take on the matter. I just feel compelled to explain how I look at it differently. Moderation and curation needn’t be malicious, irresponsible, or oppressive. They can be quite useful, as long as the users trust and respect each other and engage in conversations like this one.

2 Likes
#16

There is value sending a private message with a link to a post to the author of a post containing an error.

1 Like
#17

I have a way to put this debate out to pasture – but no one’s gonna like it :upside_down_face:

Ask @boris to make all posts wiki-posts. :rofl:

#18

You make a really great point about shared spaces.

I think people want to understand if their stuff could be “ninja edited” which is totally a concern. As I posted above, everything is pretty extensively logged.

And… everything in #how-to is a wiki :wink: