Forum Policy On "edit" Feature For Posts?

[stephen_speicher]

I would like to have a forum-wide policy clarified on the use of the "Edit" function for postings. I personally think that the "Edit" feature, which allows editing of postings after they have been posted, should be eliminated entirely for regular forum posters. My concern is that altering a post is altering the historical record, changing facts after the facts occur. If anyone actually changes their mind about an idea or position presented in a previous post, it is a simple-enough matter to write a new post clarifying the current thinking. Going back and altering the earlier post seems like an attempt to re-write history.

I myself have previously used the edit function to correct spelling errors and to delete a couple of duplicate posts. I think I may have added a note or two to previous posts, indicating such, but not changing the content. I now think that giving any editing capability after the fact is dangerous to preserving what has, in fact, previously occurred, and I suggest the "Edit" feature be disabled (assuming this is possible) for regular posters.

Could we please get a moderator decision on this?

[y_feldblum]

Guns kill people. Ergo, ban guns.

[DavidV]

I share your concerns, but I also find the edit feature extremely useful. So, I’ve decided to compromise: editing will be disabled 60 minutes after a post is made. If you would like to suggest a longer/shorter time period, I am open to suggestions.

Btw, what I don’t get is why so many people post a follow-up with corrections when the “edit” button is so clearly visible…

Oh, and there is an “Add the 'Edit by' line in this post?” option when you edit, so you can (and should) let others know when you changed a post.

Edited June 13, 2004 by GreedyCapitalist

[stephen_speicher]

I share your concerns, but I also find the edit feature extremely useful.  So, I’ve decided to compromise: editing will be disabled 60 minutes after a post is made.  If you would like to suggest a longer/shorter time period, I am open to suggestions.

I would suggest 2 seconds.

Seriously, if you want to maintain the "Edit" feature, I think the shorter the time you allow, the better.

[Free Capitalist]

I think what Dr. Speicher asks for is not that a person is disabled from editing until 60 minutes elapse, after which they can edit all they want, but the opposite, where they can edit for up to, say, 10 minutes after posting, and never thereafter.

[hippie]

I actually like the edit feature for grammatical and spelling corrections. I use a text editor to be sure I don't let any spelling errors in, but it is not perfect. It's not changing history. If you actually change your ideas in a post, it might be trying to hide your errors. Otherwise, it is just making yourself clearer. I think the 60 minute policy is rather fair.

[DavidV]

I think what Dr. Speicher asks for is not that a person is disabled from editing until 60 minutes elapse, after which they can edit all they want, but the opposite, where they can edit for up to, say, 10 minutes after posting, and never thereafter.

I think you misunderstood what I said. You can currently edit all you want until an hour passes after which the post is read-only.

I want to allow editing posts because I have a habit of reading everything I write from my audience’s perspective, and then editing it if I think it can be clarified. I usually don’t take more than five minutes, but others may.

Oh, and if someone does make a habit of “altering history,” then such dishonesty may just warrant a ban.

[AshRyan]

I actually use the edit feature quite a bit to correct grammar, spelling, or add thoughts that occur to me just after posting something. So I think that we should keep it.

But, I think there is a way to make it so that the 'Edited by' line is automatically added, and people don't have an option of unchecking that option. That way, even if the actual content of a message is changed, we at least know that it was edited, and when.

[DavidV]

But, I think there is a way to make it so that the 'Edited by' line is automatically added, and people don't have an option of unchecking that option.  That way, even if the actual content of a message is changed, we at least know that it was edited, and when.

I agree that this would be a good idea, but that doesn’t seem to be an option in the software, and I’m not motivated to find out how to hack the software myself.

[AshRyan]

I agree that this would be a good idea, but that doesn’t seem to be an option in the software, and I’m not motivated to find out how to hack the software myself.

Hmm...I assumed this was an option in the admin cp, because I have seen it done on other boards. But I looked through the cp just now, and couldn't find it. Oh, well.

[stephen_speicher]

But, I think there is a way to make it so that the 'Edited by' line is automatically added, and people don't have an option of unchecking that option.  That way, even if the actual content of a message is changed, we at least know that it was edited, and when.

But that is a little like having the new edition of a history book re-write history, and then say that at least we know the date of the change. Actually, come to think of it, the situation with posts is even worse than a new edition of a book re-writing history. With a new book edition we can at least go to the older edition and compare the differences, but with the posts the original one is destroyed by the editing, so there is nothing to compare.

Personally, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the "Edit" function should be completely disabled. Let the record stand, and make any changes as a separate post. That is pretty much how life works, too.

[AshRyan]

I don't feel like we have to baby our posters here. We have not really had a problem with this. jrshep was the only poster who has actually deleted several of his posts, and he has said that he will stop doing that. If it becomes a problem, then we will disable it. Otherwise, there is no reason to remove a function that has legitimate uses for honest posters.

[Guest jrshep]

I don't feel like we have to baby our posters here.  We have not really had a problem with this.  jrshep was the only poster who has actually deleted several of his posts, and he has said that he will stop doing that.  If it becomes a problem, then we will disable it.  Otherwise, there is no reason to remove a function that has legitimate uses for honest posters.

I can't undo the damage I've done, my offense to history and to others, and I can't fault them for being offended. I destroyed historical accuracy here. I apologize. I didn't realize how important it is here.

If I stay here, my own history here will forever be tainted. I could try to go back and restore, at least in part, the posts I deleted, but that too would fly in the face of historical accuracy. I'm damned if I do; damned if I don't.

So, I'm just going to take my leave of your forum and wish you all the best.

[AshRyan]

I can't undo the damage I've done, my offense to history and to others, and I can't fault them for being offended. I destroyed historical accuracy here. I apologize. I didn't realize how important it is here.

If I stay here, my own history here will forever be tainted. I could try to go back and restore, at least in part, the posts I deleted, but that too would fly in the face of historical accuracy. I'm damned if I do; damned if I don't.

So, I'm just going to take my leave of your forum and wish you all the best.

That's certainly not necessary. My last post was not intended as a criticism of you, but rather as a compliment in that you changed the practice that was pointed out to you to be less than ideal. I only used you as an example to assuage Stephen's concerns, since I think it was your particular case that brought this issue to the forefront. But that's resolved now, so what's the big deal about all of this?

[Betsy]

If I stay here, my own history here will forever be tainted. I could try to go back and restore, at least in part, the posts I deleted, but that too would fly in the face of historical accuracy. I'm damned if I do; damned if I don't.

So, I'm just going to take my leave of your forum and wish you all the best.

Fortunately, Objectivism is about seeking values and not damning people and I find your postings of value.

Also, Objectivists distinguish between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality and it looks like the worst thing anyone can say about those deleted posts is that you made a mistake.

Since you don't have to be infallible to be welcome here, relax and stick around, jrshep.

[stephen_speicher]

So, I'm just going to take my leave of your forum and wish you all the best.

John, I urge you to reconsider leaving.

First, though I mentioned this before, I should apologize for originally piggybacking my general discussion of the "Edit" feature onto your post. I have had concern about that feature since I discovered it here, and I should not have used your post to launch my concern. Again, this discussion was not meant to be addressed to you, but really to the moderators as a forum policy. I am confident that with your post deletions you had no bad intent, and I fully accept your explanation of why you chose to do it. Granted that the "Edit" function was there, and granted that there was (and is) not a really clear policy on how it is to be used, you did nothing wrong at all. Please do not take personally what was meant as a general discussion.

Though I do not always agree with everything you have to say, your posts have always seemed to be honest expressions of your views and concerns, and you are a most courteous poster. These are assets that are valuable to this forum, and it would be a shame to have you leave over such a non-issue.

Please reconsider.

[stephen_speicher]

We have not really had a problem with this.

How would you know?

[AshRyan]

How would you know?

Don't you think that if there were a serious problem, some evidence would turn up for it? Someone would have noticed if someone were editing their posts in a dishonest way to cover up their actual statements. I probably would have noticed myself, but if I didn't, I would have received reports to the moderators about it. Have you noticed such a problem, and just not reported it? I think the burden of proof here is on you. Until I see some evidence that there's a problem, I see no reason to disable the function that has legitimate uses for honest posters here (which is the vast majority of them).

[msb]

Ignore this, I want to see something about the edit feature (and I'm locked from editing my old posts)

[Free Capitalist]

If I stay here, my own history here will forever be tainted.

In what way?

We've spoken on CapForum, jrshep, and while I too may disagree with some things you say, I am simply astounded at this negative judgment you've made of yourself. My first reaction when I saw you say that was, "Oh come on! "

[AraqirG]

I think that the 60 minute rule is pretty fair. It gives the poster long enough to review their post and fix spelling and grammer, but not long enough to change the content substantially (sp).

I also suggest that anyone who posts adds a comment about what was changed. For example, If the original post is...

“The number of adherents is irrelevant to the tuth or falsehood of an idea. A majority is as fallible as a monority or as an individual man. A majority vote is not an epistsmolegical validation of an idea. Votingis merely a proper political device-within a strictly, constitutionaly delimited shpere of action-for choosing the practical means of implementing a society's basic principles.”

    -Ayn Rand (Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?)

Then I suggest people edit the post so it says...

“The number of adherents is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of an idea. A majority is as fallible as a minority or as an individual man. A majority vote is not an epistemological validation of an idea. Voting is merely a proper political device-within a strictly, constitutionally delimited sphere of action-for choosing the practical means of implementing a society's basic principles.”

    -Ayn Rand (Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?)

(Edit: Fixed spelling errors)

But this is just a personal preference...

[stephen_speicher]

Don't you think that if there were a serious problem, some evidence would turn up for it?

Not necessarily, which is why I asked "How would you know?" In order to know you would have to regularly go back to earlier threads and see how they changed. But, if you did not know what they were originally, how could you know they were changed?

GreedyCapitalist took care of this potential problem by disabling the "Edit" function one hour after the post is made. I think this alone substantially limits the possibility of any abuse, and I for one am glad that was done.

But, even within the one hour time, I see no real reason for the "Edit" function. If you use it to correct spelling mistakes, why should you be seen as a better speller than you are? If you use it to correct grammar, why should you be seen to possess a better sense of grammar than you do? If you use it to correct poor arguments, why should you be seen as being a better thinker than you are?

Personally, I would encourage people to spell correctly, to use proper grammar, and to think properly before they make their post. Having the opportunity to edit the post after the fact of posting it, seems to me, if anything, to discourage good spelling, good grammar, and good thinking during the posting process.

The process on a forum such as this is a continual give and take of ideas, different than the process of, say, writing a book. You do a final edit of the book before the public sees it. I doubt that any of us writes on this forum with the same care and precision that we would use for a book. Nevertheless, what we say and how we say it is what we present to the public. We are not writing books on this forum, so why not let what we present to others stand, as a reflection of what we put into a post? Afterall, if there is anything of substance that needs to be changed, a follow-up post could easily take care of that.

Anyway, I have much less concern over editing within the new one hour period, and the rest of what I said about using the "Edit" function is just an expression of how I personally view things. I can understand why you, or others, might view things differently, and that is fine.

[Edited by SJS. Just kidding! ]

[stephen_speicher]

Regarding labeling edited posts to reflect the purpose and action of the edit,

But this is just a personal preference...

I think this is a very good idea. If the "Edit" function is to remain, then I would suggest this idea be made a part of the guidelines for proper use of the forum.

[stephen_speicher]

Ash, I just came across an example which captures the concern that I have expressed about the "Edit" function. Ironically, it happened just a few minutes ago in the Nietzsche thread, in a post involving you!

In a post addressed to you, Spearmint said:

"This sounds like nonsense."

The post now reads:

"This sounds wrong."

The only reason that I happened to notice the edited change, was because I had already quoted it in a response, and wanted to search the original post for something else.

Now, "nonsense" is certainly not the same thing as "wrong," and it changes the entire tone of the post. I claim that "nonsense" reflects the historical record, and changing it as was done changes the meaning of the post entirely. Instead, the proper thing to do would be to make a follow-up post which might say: "I apologize for calling your idea nonsense. What I meant is that the idea is wrong."

This acknowledges the fact of what occurred, and rectifies it. The other way, with editing, obliterates what really occurred.

[AwakeAndFree]

I think one hour is perfectly OK.

I use the Edit option all the time, usually before anyone reads my post, because I find typos. I think 95% of my posts are edited within 10 minutes of being posted!

I do it as fast as I can afterwards, because I don't want to change history, and I never edit a post more than an hour or two after it has been posted.

Edited June 14, 2004 by erandror