-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Moin,
On Tuesday 01 November 2005 20:42, Timwi wrote:
I do think
these are two seperate points:
* how to improve the discussion pages on a wiki
* whether each author own his/her comment or not.
But the point is that the answer to the second influences whether the
solution proposed for the first is seen as an "improvement". I feel
that if the ability to edit other people's comments is taken away from
me, I can't label it an "improvement".
I have to disagree (because I am not opposed to locking comments).
Discussions,
OTOH, also involve personal opinions. Danger lies ahead
when the opionion can be changed, but is still labeled (or signed, if
you wish) with the original authors name.
We already have this "danger", and we've had it since the beginning of
Phase II, and it has not turned out to be a great problem, so this is
not an argument.
I consider it a (current) problem, maybe not at wikipedia, but on other
wikis.
Just imagine
that this discussion we have is on a wiki, this is the
latest edition (you would need to check the history, aka mailing list
archives to see the full revisions) and it contained:
On Tuesday 01 November 2005 17:36, Timwi wrote:
Any model,
if over applied, is harmful.
Agree.
I am strongly in favour of LiquidThreads.
See the danger?
A fallacious argument by false dilemma, or by lack of imagination, or
whatever you wanna call it. You almost provided the answer to this one
Yes I did. That was intentional. I never said that comment locking is the
only solution, but also that comment labeling (like "last edited by") is
a method.
yourself:
(for the record, the above quote of three lines
was
written/shortened by me, not Timwi).
And that is what it should say.
COMMENT #328645 by [[User:Timwi]]
Agree. I am strongly in favour of LiquidThreads.
(This comment was last edited by [[User:Tels]] <date/time>.)
If <date/time> is a minute ago, I better check the diff. If it was an
hour ago, I can probably assume that your edit was harmless.
Therefore, again, your "danger" is not an argument against the ability
to edit comments.
I think you misunderstood me. I said that we should improve the discussion
page:
#1 with threads etc
#2 doing something against falsely labeled comments
#2a by locking them
#2b OR by labeling them with the last change
#2c whatever else we can come up with
You say that you cannot accept improvements on #1 when 2a is implemented
and therefore would rather do nothing.
I disagree, for me either 2a OR 2b would be good. But my point is, that no
matter what we choose, we should do SOMETHING. E.g. either 2a, 2b or
something else should be done, preferable in conjunction with #1 (doesn't
make much sense, technically, anyway).
If we can
improve the discussion page itself, *and* prevent
misrepresentation at the same time, well, that would be great :)
It's really
easy.
<flame>Then why wasn't it done already? :-P </flame>
(Yes, that was a joke, laugh, it is funny.)
Best wishes,
Tels
- --
Signed on Wed Nov 2 17:24:39 2005 with key 0x93B84C15.
Visit my photo gallery at
http://bloodgate.com/photos/
PGP key on
http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
"Any sufficiently rigged demo is indistinguishable from an advanced
technology." -- Don Quixote, slashdot guy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBQ2jp8ncLPEOTuEwVAQF+Pgf8Dpzdkk/ZU3mSTOpSljpewQPVFHcuxr36
giVeDMDHNZUGmgNUXyfPmuNV19VBA0peYpTk+qAhWcWWMpHgFu+IYsQjGStSYOj/
Hj86iQN+2GdC1uhhAT24z/sRE0sLI2+uZHJf8WRnqG3JaM5qeDfhaBuI/4Bwlsm5
YPB5OzCewEr2DRNRdPHBA9Sd1aQuVqslIWOO/EBD0npIAMxnkrjHJNkXB9eEbG+p
yK4JtXuQ3ir24S1KdcGBd+OKQh/d6d073sUdHlxG0L1+ARJxYGm0TVeYjgweiDdl
1hz7fkTtjm0sAFt/Vb5Q1AjWA29JU4bd2uoyE0aVJRetqLEmJEjVKA==
=6gCj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----