True. Seems to be something of a sliding scale though from personal blog to community blog to wiki. The Stack Overflow sites for example do attribute all questions to the specific users who first asked them, but also have a strong wiki-like active editing culture. Getting the details of the site culture right is tricky and important, but a communal editing culture doesn’t seem like a categorically bad thing.
It is obviously trickier than a simple leave-as-it-is-or-delete moderation style.
There is certainly a loss of potential when blog posts are left static rather than potentially being refined and improved by both the original author and the community. It seems to be something of a local minimum that we may not be easily able to improve upon given the basic format.
There is certainly a loss of potential when blog posts are left static rather than potentially being refined and improved by both the original author and the community.
I endorse the improvement of old posts. But one should add a note with a date to it, declaring that it has been edited, to account for comments that were made prior to the editing that might refer to a problem with the initial version.
I also endorse the improvement of comments. But in the case of comments the editing should either be more limited, to not confuse people reading the follow-up comments, or mention the gist of the initial comment as a side note.
I strongly oppose having someone else edit signed material without consent.
I’m ok with an edit link which could include notes or a wiki link, or a clearly marked area which mentions edited versions (including a mention of how much was edited and by whom) and gives the edited versions’ karma.
True. Seems to be something of a sliding scale though from personal blog to community blog to wiki. The Stack Overflow sites for example do attribute all questions to the specific users who first asked them, but also have a strong wiki-like active editing culture. Getting the details of the site culture right is tricky and important, but a communal editing culture doesn’t seem like a categorically bad thing.
It is obviously trickier than a simple leave-as-it-is-or-delete moderation style.
There is certainly a loss of potential when blog posts are left static rather than potentially being refined and improved by both the original author and the community. It seems to be something of a local minimum that we may not be easily able to improve upon given the basic format.
I endorse the improvement of old posts. But one should add a note with a date to it, declaring that it has been edited, to account for comments that were made prior to the editing that might refer to a problem with the initial version.
I also endorse the improvement of comments. But in the case of comments the editing should either be more limited, to not confuse people reading the follow-up comments, or mention the gist of the initial comment as a side note.
I strongly oppose having someone else edit signed material without consent.
I’m ok with an edit link which could include notes or a wiki link, or a clearly marked area which mentions edited versions (including a mention of how much was edited and by whom) and gives the edited versions’ karma.