Better forum

[Simen Kjaeraas]

On 2012-10-06 04:12, js.mdnq <js_adddot+mdng at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 02:59:37 UTC, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
>> On 12/05/2012 09:08 PM, anonymous wrote:
>>>
>>> Editing is an anti-feature. I think it's nice that mistakes are
>>> preserved. This is a forum for discussion, mistakes are expected,
>>> and editing can make it difficult to follow.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I've been on plenty of forums where editing is allowed, and I hate it.  
>> If you're changing what you said, you're participating in a wiki page,  
>> not a conversation.
>
> Oh come on... so you're saying that if I make a mistake that changes the  
> intent that I should just leave it alone or make a new post pointing out  
> the mistake rather than being able to edit it?

Abso-fucking-lutely. Deleting and editing posts in a discussion is a plague
upon the internet. If the intent is information rather than discussion
(think wiki page), then editing is a good thing. This forum is *not* a  
wiki.


> You're just being ridiculous to be so... and hell, no one is forcing you  
> to edit your mistakes to make it easier for others to understand. Not  
> editing is much more harmful because it can cause a huge source of  
> confusion on those that reply.  Now, that might be your intention, or  
> may you are perfect and do not make mistakes, but it's not mine and I am  
> not.

Editing is much more harmful because it will cause confusion when someone
replies to something that's no longer there.

Editing is much more harmful because history is not retained, and
information thus is lost.

Editing could be accepted if only appending to the post were allowed, and
if appended edits were clearly marked as such. This keeps the history,
makes it possible to add clarifications, and is easily implementable as a
reply.

-- 
Simen