Topic on Talk:Structured Discussions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Violation of the free editing Wiki principle

6
TMg (talkcontribs)

It still drives me crazy that you refuse to let us edit other users posts. Especially if it's a second account or IP address the user owns. All we want to do is fixing broken links, templates and such. Come one, that's not an unusual use case. Not at all. You can't just remove one of the, no, the most basic function from a Wiki. Give us write access to all posts.

Don't get me wrong. The efforts and progress of the project keep impressing me and I'm definitely looking forward to use it on selected talk pages. The UI feels good. It's clean and fast. I would even use the word "fun" to describe it. But this project is pretty much guaranteed to fail if everything is full protection by default (no, that's not an opinion, I know that from over ten years in-wiki experience).

  • Let us edit our own accidental IP edits.
  • Let us edit our own posts we wrote with other accounts.
  • Let us fix template redirects so they are not stuck on WhatLinksHere forever and we can delete unused redirects without destroying talk pages.
  • Let us resolve redirects in other users posts for the same reason.
  • Let us fix broken syntax that (potentially) messes up following posts.
  • Let us remove insulting words or sentences from otherwise helpful posts without the need to hide the post completely.
  • Let us revert spam posts. Not hide, revert.
  • Let us fix broken templates in a users post.
  • If a user asks for syntax help why shouldn't we just show him how to fix it? That's so much easier. He can look at the diff instead of comparing his and our sourc... oh, wait. He can't show our source because he can't edit our post. Great.

Why do we need to bother admins with such simple tasks?

Let us edit everything.

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

TMg: Some very good points in there (and thank you for listing many of them explicitly).

There's another recent thread about this at How to edit my previous IP messages ? - There, I've pointed towards the 2 FAQ sections, which emphasize that this is an experimental component, and that the configuration can/could be changed per-wiki (and per-usergroup), and/or overall.

As Jay8g notes, there was another good/recent/short discussion related to this at w:en:Wikipedia talk:Flow#Editing own comments

Lastly, see the Flow/Editing comments#Conclusion section, of the research that Okeyes did last year.

Re: revert vs hide - this is another experimental component. I explained the nuances of that in this post. Possibly it can become a useful feature in some other way? We're all not sure. Suggestions appreciated!

(Thanks also, for the feedback about the aspects of Flow that you like - that part often gets left out, but is almost as useful as feedback about problem-areas. :)

TMg (talkcontribs)
Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

(I've fixed the link in your post, as the page-move was reverted, without leaving a redirect).

They are planning on changing that configuration. They were waiting on design resources for a specification of how it should be "indicated" that a post was edited by someone other than the original author; but they're now implementing an immediate solution so that the editing-permissions issue can be resolved faster. They're currently updating the "Edited by ...." code, at https://trello.com/c/ys5DmkDs/ and once that is code-reviewed and live, changes to the permissions should follow soon thereafter (if I understand correctly). It's not yet clear as to whether they'll initially change the configuration to "anyone" or to "logged-in/autoconfirmed editors", and the latter options might be good to continue considering. The last time we discussed it, there were some good points raised in favor of considering a change to the status-quo, particularly the 7 example diffs that whatamidoing linked.

They also need to add an optional edit-summary for edits to existing content. I've noted that at https://trello.com/c/xgRvHrqD/

TMg (talkcontribs)

Wow, isn't this ironic? You just edited a foreign post to fix an otherwise broken link. I just ask you to allow me to do the same. That's all.

Thanks for the calm response and the links. Very much appreciated. Especially the survey, which clearly shows (and I need to repeat myself here) that this is neither a technical nor the WMF's decision. What should be fully protected by default is a community decision.

Not sure what "status quo" you are referring to. The "status quo" of the current Flow prototypes I'm talking about in this thread? WhatamIdoing's examples don't prove much. Most of these accidents won't happen anyway if there is a "reply" button. And I know there are much more examples where it was helpful, important, sometimes even crucial to be able to edit foreign posts. What if I raise more points and add 14 counterexamples?

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

The irony was partially intended! As a volunteer editor, I've always completely agreed that editors should be able to edit all posts/content that isn't protected.

The only thing I'm (again, personally) less certain about, is whether IPs should be able to edit all posts, because I think I've seen more inappropriate edits from IPs to other people's existing comments, than good edits, over the years...... My default answer would be "enable it for everyone!" (the status quo) but that's based on my heart... and I'm curious if there is evidence that IPs do more "testing or vandalism or fixes-to-spelling-that-they-shouldn't-do" (and other things not in the list at each wiki's equivalent of WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments).

I'm not sure if that's easily/feasibly answerable (I assume not), but I think it's worth researching if at all possible, and contemplating at the very least. Always challenge assumptions! :)

(Sidenote: It might also be a useful configuration at some smaller wikis, but not at the larger wikis. Or the other way around. It's basically just a new option to consider.)

Reply to "Violation of the free editing Wiki principle"