27-September-2005, 04:16 PM
|
 |
Established Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Bloomington, Indiana, USA
Posts: 425
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cylinder
It is probably a better self-correction practice to leave the incorrect information in place but supply a warning or caveat where you point to the correct information.
|
Hi Cylinder,
I very much appreciate your thoughtful reply. 
I think I do usually follow a pale approximation of your practices except for the "First post" and "Review" type items where multiple interpolation of "I first said this, but really it's this" would make an already complex post unreadable. (See here for a first post that was edited piecemeal, palely approximating your suggested practice, which would in fact greatly benefit from a thorough revision, without prejudicing any subsequent post. By agreement, BOINC teams are not allowed multiple threads in the Astronomy section, so we rarely start new ones.)
But a larger point is that even the editing methods you suggest are prohibited by Rule 11 as it now reads:
Quote:
11. Editing & Revisionism
Edit your posts with care. There's no problem with editing a post later to change the tone or to correct spelling and the like. But changing content is not allowed! This is a slippery path that can be seen as revisionism. You may edit your post for up to 24 hours. Also, when quoting other posters, you may trim the text down to brief snippets to address something in particular, but do not misquote others or alter their content to suggest they've stated things which they haven't.
|
(emphasis added)
Firstly, as I mentioned, unlimited editing is now permitted, so the 24 hour statement is factually incorrect. And as I read the rule even the editing of the kind you mentioned is forbidden, as it definitely changes content.
I don't read ATM, and the hostility that must exist there (as implied by these rules) means I may never do so. Also I know that the BA has experienced much wholly undeserved grief from his generosity in even allowing a forum for alternative views.
But, and I wish I could make this sound kinder than it will look on the page, I fear that Rule 11 might be applied more vigorously and more literally in ATM than elsewhere. The edits in the post referred to above, among others, are clearly "revisionist" in the terms of the rule, but no one has ever warned me about them. But a post with a similarly edited block structure in ATM might well earn one. If someone is banned in ATM for revisionism, I should be too.
So I would greatly welcome a more nuanced rule, which couldn't do better than incorporate the examples you gave, in my opinion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cylinder
I think this practice will actually help increase a user's credibility (or at least it does in my mind) because it demonstrates the fact that the user takes seriously the information they provide.
|
By this point, nothing I do will increase my credibility. |