![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")
| Table of contents |
How should we edit discussions? Here's an example:
How should A go about purging out his statement?
TJ: In a pure discussion, it seems to me that just leaving the flow of the discussion is dandy; a page set up for discussion specifically, I mean. A page about 3-3 joseki that starts up a discussion, hopefully eventually all discussion on that page comes to a completion, a consensus is reached, and someone can MasterEdit it and get rid of the actual discussion and present the findings in a nice way. If there is no consensus, and not even a crystalization of different points of view can be presented after a good time, the discussion can be moved to a discussion page and the original page can mention the points in contention and point to the discussion until such time as there is resolution, if ever. Anyways, I think rules on this matter are and should be a passing thing, and common sense and restraint used in all cases, along with understanding. WabiSabi, you know.:) This is just how I myself would go (and have gone) about it.
(Sebastian:) Thank you for linking it to WabiSabi - we should really keep this in mind. It is easy to get too involved in rules and maintain them for their own sake. I now think that we don't need rules, but a guideline and recommendations, with the intention to make writing and editing on SL a pleasant experience, and to make SL fleetingly beautiful. I may feel differently tomorrow. :-)
Andrew Grant: Here's a similar problem which I'd appreciate guidance on. Recently I suggested changing a line in RulesOfGoIntroductory, (basically translating it from mathematical jargon into English.) Several people posted agreeing with me, generating a mini-discussion on that page. No-one disagreed. So I went ahead and changed the line. Should I now delete the discussion, which no longer relates to anything as the offending line is no longer there? I'm reluctant to delete other peoples' contributions for fear of offending anyone.
Charles I'd say, go ahead - after a reasonable time has lapsed.
Andrew Grant: OK, I'll give it a week or so then delete it. I'll leave a one-line note in its place saying I've deleted it (otherwise what's to stop someone mistaking it for an act of Wiki Vandalism and restoring the text, and blocking my IP address into the bargain?).
Charles I don't think people get blocked for that sort of thing ...
So the buttom line is that the discussion above should be master edited into, "The sun is a star, unlike the moon.", right? This kind of editing in the spirit of master edit is not only allowed but encouraged? And should somebody replace the whole "Discussion I" topic with a summary? ("Discussion II" touches some discussion page editing and the conclusion there seems to be that it should be done but I'm way too lazy to read the whole of it... - Summaries really help people like me... ;) Reuven
unkx80: I won't bother WikiMasterEditing this page, I don't think it is really worth the effort, but I won't stop you from doing so. I rather see more real Go contents, for example, more joseki sequences (many joseki sequences in SL are not complete, some are missing, and isn't SL supposed to be some kind of encyclopedia?). The fact that I have tagged "Discussion I" and "Discussion II" actually means that I never really read such discussions. However, if you insist on editing such discussions, my advice is be very careful in editing them.
radvendii: i disagree with editing out a conversation because even if a general consensus is reached it is still interesting to see the points that where presented what i vthink should be done is that at the begining of the conversation the answer that was come up with is posted so that if someone wants to read the conversation they can
Bill (commenting about the listing of the work page at Linguistics - Japanese - whole discussion moved here by Charles): I disagree. Work is about go.
Charles So it has a para by John Fairbairn on hataraki the word. Bill, I think if you object both to this way of doing it, which I'm now saying is provisional, and to the next idea, of talk pages, you make it hard for me to edit as I see fit. So, let me just say firmly that I'm going to go ahead with trying to rationalise these discussions.
(Sebastian:) It seems the disagreement is to do with what it means if a page appears on Linguistics - Japanese. If it means that these pages should be renamed xxTalk and/or should be designated as PageType=Talk, then I agree with Bill. If it means that these pages contain some linguistic talk (which may or may not be moved into a separate xxTalk page) and should be assigned a Keyword "Talk" then I agree with Charles.
Bill: I think that a path is a good idea, Charles. If people want to make Talk pages, fine. (Although I cringe at the word choice. How about (Language) or Meaning?) My disagreement is specific. I do not believe that Work has "linguistic (rather than technical go) discussion as {its} main content." We seem to disagree about that. OK, I'm expressing my opinion. Would you rather I do it in a footnote? Or perhaps you would like to characterize these pages more broadly? For instance, as containing linguistic discussion? And what about other languages? The haengma page would qualify in Korean, wouldn't it?
Come to think about it, what about Meaning? It seems to me that all of these pages (including Work) are about the meanings of the terms.
Charles My intention is to make Hataraki talk?, and to link to it from work: which, as Bill says, is a technical go page by initial intention. Actually, that in the small is what I would want to do more generally. Can I say that, in my view, we don't need either of WorkTalk, or a page just on hataraku/i? This is the kind of distinction I'm trying to promote.
Bill: Thanks for the clarification, Charles. :-)
But what would be in Hataraki talk?? John's paragraph? As the first sentence refers to the Work page, that entails a loss of context. Editing can take care of that, OC. Do you propose to move the paragraph there? If I were John, I might object. Here I have written a brief comment endorsing a page about a particular go concept, and supported my opinion by citing how often the corresponding word appears in Japanese go texts. Now I find my comment relabeled as a linguistic statement about the Japanese term. I might think that that was a distortion of what I said. (OC, John might feel quite differently. :-)) However, if my (John's) comment were copied to the new page and properly edited, I would probably have no objection, since my original comment remains undistorted.
Charles Well, yes - I was proposing to do roughly as Bill indicates: move John's contribution out, make forward and backward links, and smooth matters out if any awkwardness remained in the wording. I wouldn't in any case try to diminish my responsibility for doing it right. But, on the other hand, that's just a paragraph. Plenty more to do. Bill, I do wince sometimes when arguments against editing are raised. Not for myself - I have confidence that any frictions can be talked out here. But on behalf of others, who may feel that moving material is fraught with personal difficulties: leaving few here actually undertaking any editorial role.
Bill: Well, Charles, maybe we should start a page about editing SL. Let me just say that there is editing and editing. A Wiki Master Edit may require creating new pages and moving material for the purpose of clarification. It is quite another thing to create new pages and move material there for the purpose of expressing a viewpoint.
After writing my previous note here, I took another look at John's paragraph. The main clause of the first sentence, about the frequency of occurrence of hataraku, and the word usage in the second sentence, seem to me to be the extent of its linguistic content. The rest, and the paragraph as a whole, seem to me to be about work. Speaking for myself, and not speculating about John, I feel that it is entirely appropriate to the page and would not be happy if it were excised from it. I realize that you view it differently. I respect your viewpoint, but I do not want it imposed upon me.
Also, instead of editing first and dealing with any friction later, how about discussing possible edits beforehand? :-)
Charles Well, on the last point, there is a straightforward objection in general: it's bureaucratic. And there's an obvious wiki objection: it goes completely counter to what a wiki is supposed to be. There should be no barriers at all to people editing as they see it. I think we can judge SL as a community by the fact that little friction is seen, and perhaps not that much more felt. But, and I return to the point about those who go public against editing, I think you're wrong to phrase it as 'imposed'. An edit is simply a form of comment: would it be better this way? And comment should be free. I actually think it wrong of you, Bill, to take this line. It effectively makes it seem that if I show another way to display the content of a short page, I cross a line. Well, there is no such line. I believe I'd be 100% within my rights to make a change, and mend my fences with you and John afterwards. And that's between people who (as far as I can see) have not the slightest beef about go matters. Heaven knows, if such insistence in etiquette (not wiki etiquette, I might add) is demanded in this case, what will the world and his wife make of the task of sorting out some tangle much more in need of a master edit.
Bill: It looks like we should move this discussion to a page on editing.
One brief comment: I do not regard a structural edit as equivalent to making a comment. For instance, here, you and I are engaged in a discussion that arose from a comment of mine. I think that's fine, although we can't leave the page in the resultant state. But I could have made a structural edit by removing Hataraki from the list of pages on the path. That would have been disrespectful of you, and, IMHO, improper behavior on SL.
Then what? We might have gotten into a feud, with me removing the page from the list and you putting it back, etc., etc. Not only would such a feud be ridiculous and improper, but so would the first salvo, the structural edit made to express a point of vview.
(Sebastian:) All this commotion about a change that Charles only proposed! Bill, I understand that you are concerned about giving a bad example. But I don't think that, in average, SL has a problem with too little respect, but rather with people not daring to touch anything anyone has signed before.
Charles I don't anyway accept the argument. If I say that someone's edit of this page is detrimental, I argue from my authority (assuming not from the even worse ground, that it is somehow my parish). But that's quite wrong. The technology admits very flexible types of discussion, and I don't think anyone should hold them up by insisting on 'notifications', 'going through proper channels', 'squatters rights' or any of a dozen other tenuous grounds for having their point of view privileged.
It seems, anyway, that Sebastian echoes my main point:
people shouldn't thunder here about edits being made, putting the bulk of the 400-odd users with SL home pages off even trying to contribute by editing.
Bill, that does mean you.
Bill: Much later comment. Laissez faire editing, when there is a dispute over editing the same material, is self defeating in Kantian terms. With the material being edited changing as fast as the disputants can manage it, there is really no material to be edited. Besides, there is no need for such editing feuds, because there is room for all viewpoints to be expressed. In the case we were discussing, copying would have allowed that.
I think that a general rule of thumb should be, if you disagree with something, just say so.