I for one frequently review my comments well after the fact to correct stupid mistakes in the wording which I failed to catch the first time around. When I change my mind after more than a few minutes of reflection, I prefer to create new comments to draw attention to the fact that I no longer endorse the statement(s) made in previous comments, but I do not like to create new comments to point out “This comment would have been worded differently if I were a competent editor.”
I for one frequently review my comments well after the fact to correct stupid mistakes in the wording which I failed to catch the first time around.
I agree that this is a legitimate use of the edit feature. Because there are such legitimate uses, I favor allowing edits, but keeping a public history so that abuses can be called out.
Why should you be allowed to edit recorded history so that you have always thought what you think now?
Because it is a reality of human psychology that people will status-penalize your current self for the mistakes of your past self, even if they (say that they) try not to.
Also, it would be undesirable to have a bunch of new comments of the form “I’ve changed my mind about that semicolon”. Such comments might even be downvoted, resulting in a no-win situation for the commenter.
And you’re not actually editing recorded history. People know the rules, and know that comments can be edited, so expect that people will try if possible to make all their comments make their current self look good.
And if someone quotes your comment before you edit it, you still suffer all the consequences.
It would furthermore be unfair to freeze edits without also freezing voting.
Why should those issues be linked?
To prevent a situation where someone is hemorrhaging karma and unable to do anything about it.
In general, this a case of “leave well enough alone”, or, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Editing comments—like any feature—has potential for abuse, but it’s not currently causing any problems severe enough to outweigh the benefits.
Why should you be allowed to edit recorded history so that you have always thought what you think now?
Because it is a reality of human psychology that people will status-penalize your current self for the mistakes of your past self, even if they (say that they) try not to.
That may be a general problem, but on Less Wrong, what I typically observe is that people get upvoted for accepting counter arguments and changing their mind and for apologizing for rude behavior. Sometimes downvotes are even removed from the rude comment that required the apology.
Also, it would be undesirable to have a bunch of new comments of the form “I’ve changed my mind about that semicolon”. Such comments might even be downvoted, resulting in a no-win situation for the commenter.
As I have said, that is a fair use of the edit feature. But it is not the use that you were defending.
And you’re not actually editing recorded history.
That seems to me to deny basic facts. The comments are a record of a discussion, editing them to say something different destroys that record.
People know the rules, and know that comments can be edited, so expect that people will try if possible to make all their comments make their current self look good.
The fact that people know the rules, and do their best within those rules, does not mean there are not better rules that allow people to generally do better.
It would furthermore be unfair to freeze edits without also freezing voting.
Why should those issues be linked?
To prevent a situation where someone is hemorrhaging karma and unable to do anything about it.
People who generally write high quality comments are not going to hemorrhage enough karma from their momentary mistakes to put them under any thresholds. Once you are above 20, additional karma is just license to screw up.
In general, this a case of “leave well enough alone”, or, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Editing comments—like any feature—has potential for abuse, but it’s not currently causing any problems severe enough to outweigh the benefits.
It doesn’t happen very often, but it is quite irksome when someone edits their comment so my reply doesn’t make sense. (And it tends to happen more often in more heated discussions.) I expect this to happen more often as Less Wrong attracts more members and the level of the median member goes down, even as the level of individual members goes up over time after they join.
It doesn’t happen very often, but it is quite irksome when someone edits their comment so my reply doesn’t make sense.
You’re probably okay as long as you quote the bit you’re answering.
Yeah, I do that sometimes for that reason, but doesn’t it look kind of silly that I have quoted your entire comment that I am replying to (this time I just did it for the illustration)? It would be nice not to have to do that, and to read comments that are written like that.
That may be a general problem, but on Less Wrong, what I typically observe is that people get upvoted for accepting counter arguments and changing their mind and for apologizing for rude behavior. Sometimes downvotes are even removed from the rude comment that required the apology.
Even so, it’s still much better from a status perspective for people to forget or not to know about “bad” comments if possible.
Though you will also observe that people often don’t delete their mistakes, and explain them instead. I myself have done this more than once; and in fact I have become somewhat self-conscious about editing comments since I found out about the asterisk that results (which I went nearly two years without noticing).
Nevertheless, I derive significant comfort from knowing that I have the ability to “rewrite history” if I really need to.
Also, it would be undesirable to have a bunch of new comments of the form “I’ve changed my mind about that semicolon”. Such comments might even be downvoted, resulting in a no-win situation for the commenter.
As I have said, that is a fair use of the edit feature. But it is not the use that you were defending.
If that’s what you thought, then you misunderstood, because it most certainly is (among) the use(s) I was defending. I see a quantitative continuum between this kind of revision and more substantial kinds, not a qualitative separation.
And you’re not actually editing recorded history.
That seems to me to deny basic facts. The comments are a record of a discussion, editing them to say something different destroys that record.
It destroys that record, but there’s nothing stopping anyone else from keeping another record and preserving the content themselves—the simplest way being to quote the comment in reply. And even the most notoriously deleted posts and comments ever to appear on Less Wrong are currently preserved off-site.
The argument that to revise is to rewrite history applies Fully Generally against any kind of revision of any public document. Should blog authors not be allowed by blogging software to edit their posts? In fact, why should anyone be able to delete their account on LW at all? Even making comments anonymous destroys part of the historical record, namely the information about who wrote it.
However I think that archiving previous versions while allowing revisions is probably an acceptable compromise (provided the archive link is unobtrusive and perhaps slightly inconvenient).
People who generally write high quality comments are not going to hemorrhage enough karma from their momentary mistakes to put them under any thresholds. Once you are above 20, additional karma is just license to screw up.
Karma is also a proxy for status, and in fact it’s the hemorrhaging of status that I was most concerned about. And flurries of bandwagon downvotes on old comments have happened more than once, including to me.
It doesn’t happen very often, but it is quite irksome when someone edits their comment so my reply doesn’t make sense. (And it tends to happen more often in more heated discussions.) I expect this to happen more often as Less Wrong attracts more members and the level of the median member goes down, even as the level of individual members goes up over time after they join.
I’m not sure why you would expect lower-level members to edit more than higher-level members.
If I have a long, complicated comment, I don’t like appending a series of patches to it. It makes it less clear instead of more clear. This goes doubly for posts.
If a comment has been replied to, it’s good to highlight changes with eg … , if they change the interpretation of a reply.
Both sides have merit. If LW continues to grow, it will probably reach a point where I’d prefer freezing edits after 24h, because it will have a higher proportion of users who abuse the ability to edit.
You are always allowed to change your mind, and to write another comment indicating that you have changed your mind. Why should you be allowed to edit recorded history so that you have always thought what you think now?
Why should those issues be linked?
I for one frequently review my comments well after the fact to correct stupid mistakes in the wording which I failed to catch the first time around. When I change my mind after more than a few minutes of reflection, I prefer to create new comments to draw attention to the fact that I no longer endorse the statement(s) made in previous comments, but I do not like to create new comments to point out “This comment would have been worded differently if I were a competent editor.”
I agree that this is a legitimate use of the edit feature. Because there are such legitimate uses, I favor allowing edits, but keeping a public history so that abuses can be called out.
I think that’s appropriate, as long as it doesn’t leave a more obtrusive mark on the comment itself than is already used.
Perhaps just add a button for ‘review edit history’
Because it is a reality of human psychology that people will status-penalize your current self for the mistakes of your past self, even if they (say that they) try not to.
Also, it would be undesirable to have a bunch of new comments of the form “I’ve changed my mind about that semicolon”. Such comments might even be downvoted, resulting in a no-win situation for the commenter.
And you’re not actually editing recorded history. People know the rules, and know that comments can be edited, so expect that people will try if possible to make all their comments make their current self look good.
And if someone quotes your comment before you edit it, you still suffer all the consequences.
To prevent a situation where someone is hemorrhaging karma and unable to do anything about it.
In general, this a case of “leave well enough alone”, or, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Editing comments—like any feature—has potential for abuse, but it’s not currently causing any problems severe enough to outweigh the benefits.
That may be a general problem, but on Less Wrong, what I typically observe is that people get upvoted for accepting counter arguments and changing their mind and for apologizing for rude behavior. Sometimes downvotes are even removed from the rude comment that required the apology.
As I have said, that is a fair use of the edit feature. But it is not the use that you were defending.
That seems to me to deny basic facts. The comments are a record of a discussion, editing them to say something different destroys that record.
The fact that people know the rules, and do their best within those rules, does not mean there are not better rules that allow people to generally do better.
People who generally write high quality comments are not going to hemorrhage enough karma from their momentary mistakes to put them under any thresholds. Once you are above 20, additional karma is just license to screw up.
It doesn’t happen very often, but it is quite irksome when someone edits their comment so my reply doesn’t make sense. (And it tends to happen more often in more heated discussions.) I expect this to happen more often as Less Wrong attracts more members and the level of the median member goes down, even as the level of individual members goes up over time after they join.
You’re probably okay as long as you quote the bit you’re answering.
Yeah, I do that sometimes for that reason, but doesn’t it look kind of silly that I have quoted your entire comment that I am replying to (this time I just did it for the illustration)? It would be nice not to have to do that, and to read comments that are written like that.
Even so, it’s still much better from a status perspective for people to forget or not to know about “bad” comments if possible.
Though you will also observe that people often don’t delete their mistakes, and explain them instead. I myself have done this more than once; and in fact I have become somewhat self-conscious about editing comments since I found out about the asterisk that results (which I went nearly two years without noticing).
Nevertheless, I derive significant comfort from knowing that I have the ability to “rewrite history” if I really need to.
If that’s what you thought, then you misunderstood, because it most certainly is (among) the use(s) I was defending. I see a quantitative continuum between this kind of revision and more substantial kinds, not a qualitative separation.
It destroys that record, but there’s nothing stopping anyone else from keeping another record and preserving the content themselves—the simplest way being to quote the comment in reply. And even the most notoriously deleted posts and comments ever to appear on Less Wrong are currently preserved off-site.
The argument that to revise is to rewrite history applies Fully Generally against any kind of revision of any public document. Should blog authors not be allowed by blogging software to edit their posts? In fact, why should anyone be able to delete their account on LW at all? Even making comments anonymous destroys part of the historical record, namely the information about who wrote it.
However I think that archiving previous versions while allowing revisions is probably an acceptable compromise (provided the archive link is unobtrusive and perhaps slightly inconvenient).
Karma is also a proxy for status, and in fact it’s the hemorrhaging of status that I was most concerned about. And flurries of bandwagon downvotes on old comments have happened more than once, including to me.
I’m not sure why you would expect lower-level members to edit more than higher-level members.
Currently, the record can be destroyed by deleting it, so I don’t see this as a big deal.
That’s often a compliment.
If I have a long, complicated comment, I don’t like appending a series of patches to it. It makes it less clear instead of more clear. This goes doubly for posts.
If a comment has been replied to, it’s good to highlight changes with eg … , if they change the interpretation of a reply.
Both sides have merit. If LW continues to grow, it will probably reach a point where I’d prefer freezing edits after 24h, because it will have a higher proportion of users who abuse the ability to edit.