Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Forum Policy On "edit" Feature For Posts?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I think if it's such a concern, the time limit for editing after posting can be brought down. Even I have used the EDIT feature, primarily for typo's. But I notice that once I post, I always read what I have written once and then go on to something else. It is in that reading that I and most people, I presume, correct typo's and the likes. So the time can be brought down.

You shouldn't be able to change the actual content of your argument, a follow up clarifying your stance would do just fine. So I agree with Stephen. No one is omnipotent, so mistakes will be made, but that mistake should be acknowledged, rather than trying to erase it.

Dinesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to have a forum-wide policy clarified on the use of the "Edit" function for postings.

First, I think banning editing would only lead a disorganized site. I have made errors in posts that I went back to correct two days later. I had codes that made the post an embarrasement to me because of the appearance. If editing was banned, it would have made that post permanent. Unless the moderators are assigned the task of cleaning up errors, it will not be done.

Secondly, every time that you reply to a post you should include the text that is in dispute. That can never been modified except by the replier. If you ever find a place where you quoted section is not the same as the origianl post, you have an issue to raise with the moderators.

Thirdly and most importantly since we are aspiring objectivists, we should not assume that posters are dishonest. It is a contradiction of our philosophy. I say you need to prove the opposite before restricting the honest posters form doing their best at displaying their arguments. If someone is dishonest, prove it; and penalize him and him alone.

At most, the adminsitrator should remove the option to have"edited by" included in the modified posts. If any such change is made, let it be known by default. If a person's honesty is in question, a flag will be raised with the "edited by". If such a sitatuion is discovered, address it publicly. I would prefer to find the "second handers" instead of preventing them from showing their heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the adminsitrator should remove the option to have"edited by" included in the modified posts

I agree. The "Edited by" mark has no affect on honest posters and doesn't restrict their ability to change their post. I like that idea. It would also provide an incentive for posters to label why they changed their post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I am fine with the one hour limitation. I try to preview my messages before I post them, but often I find on rereading it after having posted it that I made a typo. That's not an issue of trying to pretend that I'm a better speller than I am. People just make mistakes when they type. Frankly, I would rather have people correct their own mistakes than having posts full of mistakes or having to correct them for them. If there becomes a reason to think there's a problem, then we can think about disabling the editing function. Until then, I think we can trust our posters to be responsible for their own behavior. (And even if we do find out that someone is abusing the feature, I would probably just take action against that one person, rather than punishing all of the users--unless I had reason to think the abuse were widespread.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. The "Edited by" mark has no affect on honest posters and doesn't restrict their ability to change their post. I like that idea. It would also provide an incentive for posters to label why they changed their post.

I already mentioned this, but apparently the board lacks the ability to remove that option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By editing a previous post within 60 minutes is not changing history any more than writing a new edition to an history text. Usually, in a new edition to an history text, you do not change the concept of the book--if you did it would not go under the same title. Rather, you simply clean up the presentation. It isn't unreasonable to do something similar on a message board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate parallels the nationwide debate on guns. Liberals (stereotypically) think, "guns kill people; ergo, ban guns." I know that argument to be utter nonsense (and not merely wrong). Guns don't kill people: people kill people; ergo, kill the people that kill people.

In forum-speak, that translates to Stephen saying, "the edit feature obliterates history; ergo, ban that feature." But it is not the edit feature that obliterates history: unscrupulous users do; ergo, ban those users.

Now, a valid argument can be made for banning the personal possession of nuclear warheads. Similarly, a valid argument can be made for removing the edit feature after a sufficiently long time has elapsed. But neither argument can possibly extend to guns and the edit feature.

The principle is: tools do not choose between alternatives; people choose between alternatives. Tools do not violate rights; people violate rights. Do not remove tools; remove people. The metaphysical is the given and is neither good nor bad. The man-made, and it alone, can be the object of sanction or sanction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate parallels the nationwide debate on guns. 

Only in some bizarre, surreal world other than our own.

In forum-speak, that translates to Stephen saying, "the edit feature obliterates history; ergo, ban that feature."  But it is not the edit feature that obliterates history: unscrupulous users do; ergo, ban those users.

I opposed the "Edit" feature not solely because of potential misuse, but also for the reason it was supposedly designed. I said:

"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?"

Or, did you not bother to read what I actually wrote before you made your bizarre comparison to "the nationwide debate on guns?" (Rhetorical question.)

[snip further discussion of "nuclear warheads" and other bizarre "parallels." Get a grip on yourself, y_feldblum.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

y_feldblum,

If its people, not tools that are the problem, why don’t I just make everyone an administrator? For that matter, why do banks make us go through the hassle of showing identification when we withdraw money? Can’t we just “remove” bad people?

Stephen,

Your argument is silly as well. I am in fact a pretty horrible typist, speller, and not the greatest of logicians either. I even type with three fingers even though I do computer programming for my job. Am I cheating reality by correcting my spelling, or the first draft of my arguments? Obviously not, as the second or third draft of an argument is still mine. It would only be wrong of me to change my original argument after someone else corrected my mistakes and pretend that I came up with the correct version myself.

BTW, I see this forum has having value on three levels: primarily, as an ongoing conversation, secondarily, as a record of past conversations that provides others with value, and finally, as a record of the actions (and thus the character) of particular individuals. Allowing users to correct their posts serves the first two functions, while keeping an accurate record serves the third. I sometimes go through old threads and delete pointless threads or correct badly spelled or formatted posts. It definitely diminishes the accuracy of the record, but I think it's worth improving the forum’s value as a resource. There is a tradeoff between keeping a historical record and maximizing the value of the archives, and the solution is not at all obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, I read the entire thread. But I've also tried to post once or twice. (This will be my six hundredth post numerically; but content-wise, who are we kidding?) When I post, I frequently notice how far Word is from a <textarea>: like Neptune from Tatooine. Even so, no matter how done I was after the last one, I have found that Yet Another Revision Phase is always necessary.

A reasonable amount of polish is to be expected in public communication. The banishment of polish at the price of headaches reading others' messages is just not a fair trade. I don't expect anyone to catch every error when writing his first draft, second draft, third, fourth, or fifth. A hundredth draft is not necessary. But a second draft often enough is - and it I would prefer to read.

The above is with regard to form only. The content of a piece of writing should be formed some time before the author considers his piece to be done. Content - though it may require plenty of preliminary rounds -, if it made sense the first time around, should not require a second time around.

You ask, why should you be seen as a better speller than you are? I ask, why not? There is a line for logic: it is a standard that one is expected always to meet. There is also a line for eye-candy (presentation, etc.): it is a baseline. Pretensions at being a better logician are easily seen through; pretensions at being a better presenter of logic will always be welcome. That all applies if I owned the forum, but I hope the actual owner agrees.

If I owned the forum, I would make it a place for people to express ideas couched in clarity; I would make it a floor for discussion, not an archive to collect drafts. My motive would be towards the future, not against the past. Again, I hope the actual owner of the forum agrees. I think close to every user of this site understands that others will inevitably revise their posts for style, and I hope they appreciate it. Ban the users who think content is just another component of form. But don't ban form.

I made my bizarre comparision to the question of guns in the second post in the thread, right after your first. Admittedly, it was only six words; but I thought the connection couldn't be missed. It apparently was, along with the six words themselves.

Stephen, I don't exist solely to antagonize you; I have some other interests besides that, and that isn't even my favorite. In fact, that isn't even one of them. But I do not understand at all your condemnation of - and I don't understand exactly what it is you are condemning. But I can imagine its consequences, and I conclude that they do not form a bright future.

They say the moral is the practical - and the practical is the moral. I do not doubt for a second the practicality of what I support - nor its morality.

Edited by y_feldblum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen,

Your argument is silly as well.  I am in fact a pretty horrible typist, speller, and not the greatest of logicians either.  I even type with three fingers even though I do computer programming for my job.  Am I cheating reality by correcting my spelling, or the first draft of my arguments?  Obviously not, as the second or third draft of an argument is still mine. 

You seem to be forgetting the "Preview Post" button. You can correct your spelling, grammar, and logical arguments to your heart's content -- you can have your "second or third draft ," or, as many drafts as you like -- all before you make your post public. Or, do you also find the "Preview Post" button to be silly?

Look, this is my final comment in this thread. In an open forum like this, where people make their postings public, I treat what they post as being a part of the public record. Posters are free to check their posts as many times as they like before they post, but changing the post itself once it appears is like re-writing history. Any corrections or second thoughts can be made as a separate follow-up post, if desired.

Imagine I send you an email and then, two days later, I ask that you return the email to me and purge any record of it on your computer, so that I can change what I originally sent, and send you a new post instead. That is, in essence, what automatically happens in this forum when an original post is destroyed by being overwritten with a replacement post.

It's your forum and you are free to do as you want. However, I should note that, as a result of my speaking up, you changed the rules and now restrict editing an existing post to be within one hour of posting. Evidently you did not really think my arguments against editing existing posts were "silly," since you acted upon them, but rather you disagree about the length of time till you restrict editing.

I have nothing more to say about this, and will not make any further replies on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, but why is keeping people from editing so important? I find the feature useful. If someone changes something that they said, so what? Is it worth taking the freedom of choosing the edit function away? Give me a break. None of these arguments are so ungodly important to need to completely remove the edit function. I think sometimes people just like to complain, which is exactly what I am doing now that I realize it. So maybe that makes my hypothesis stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Actually I _did_ in fact make a new post acknowledging that I had edited the original as soon as I noticed that you had quoted it. As I stated then, I was going to reedit my post back to its original formulation in order to avoid confusion, but I found the edit option to be disabled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats hilarious!!! what irony. Put the edit function back. Who cares if you edit? Does it really make that big of a difference? I cant believe that on a forum that anyone would be afraid of someone editing their post. What is the worst that could happen? Maybe someone corrects a spelling error. Or someone edits their post to MAKE SENSE. I wouldnt want someones post to become more intelligent or anything. (that was sarcasm).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...