Since I see some people here are doing crazy editing, I think it'd be nice if we could implement a way to mark those users we don't want editing our questions.
asked Jul 13, 2009 at 22:23
-
3Just roll back their edit on your question/answer. Otherwise, it hurts a site rule about community edits and will be declined.– akarnokdJul 13, 2009 at 22:28
-
2Do you perchance have any examples of problem behaviour?– cletusJul 13, 2009 at 22:28
-
meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4907/…– Lance RobertsJul 13, 2009 at 22:38
-
Crazy editing? Ha. I love the SO propaganda machine.– GEOCHETJul 13, 2009 at 23:11
-
For those who don't know, this post is a case in point.– Lance RobertsJul 13, 2009 at 23:21
-
4@Lance: Agreed. My edits were harmful, malicious and abusive. You should inform the moderators as I have done.– GEOCHETJul 13, 2009 at 23:25
-
Downvote for harmful or useless question.– toastJul 14, 2009 at 4:07
-
2This obsession seems personal to me. There was nothing wrong with those edits.– JP AliotoJul 14, 2009 at 4:17
-
@Rich, it doesn't seem like you to insert the word 'Please'. Perhaps you've grown soft...– devinbJul 14, 2009 at 13:27
-
-1 For taking edits personally...Again 99.99% of SO edits are valid...– Miyagi CoderJul 14, 2009 at 15:29
-
2@Miyagi, it's the .01% that bother me. Obviously, you won't know what I mean until it happens to you.– Lance RobertsJul 14, 2009 at 15:31
Add a comment
|
4 Answers
While I totally and 100% appreciate the overall sentiment of this idea, I think overall this is probably not a good idea. Even though I've been vocal about concerns on the edits that some users have been made, I can still safely say that are cases for great edits to my posts by the same users.
For example, just because I disagree with Rich and some of his edits does not mean I want to stop him from editing my posts when I have a typo, it is ambiguous, etc. Rich does do a great job at helping out in these situations and I would definitely want his help, especially when the change may prevent me from looking bad.
I would extend this by saying that I would definitely prefer that there was some form of agreement on what best practices are for some edits and overall posting guidelines. Quite a few of the so called edit wars could be corrected by an agreement. Simply disabling any user's ability to edit with the reputation on a per post basis seems to be rather negative.
-
1I have no problem with responsible editing, and do so on SO now that I have the rep. I edit for spelling mistakes, and to make things clearer so that people will have more incentive to investigate the question, and I edit tags to make the question more searchable. What he does goes beyond that line. Jul 14, 2009 at 1:04
-
@Lance the system does a very good goob at correcting the few edits that cross the line... Jul 14, 2009 at 15:33
If there is a specific post of yours you're having an issue with, you can flag it to bring it to a moderators attention. Beyond that though, I think the complexity this would add to the system would not be worth the payoff. The theory behind reputation is that it is a measure of the trust the system has in you; and therefore it unlocks certain features. If any user or users are abusing this power, then the moderators and/or SO team can take actions against this. Otherwise, if a user or users are trusted by the system, then they should be trusted. Once you post a question, it is not entirely your own. From the faq...
Other people can edit my stuff?!
Like Wikipedia, this site is collaboratively edited. If you are not comfortable with the idea of your questions and answers being edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you.
answered Jul 13, 2009 at 23:09
-
That's the point, I need to be able to lock out untrusted users. Reputation does not always equal trust. Jul 13, 2009 at 23:24
-
2@Lance: Yes it does. And if you are using this post as an example, it is working perfectly. A trusted user made a very valid and helpful edit to your post, and you (an untrusted user) has rolled it back. This goes against the FAQ, which are the rules of this site. You have single handedly proven the validity of the current system.– GEOCHETJul 13, 2009 at 23:29
-
1@Lance, as SO is written, higher reputation = trust and increasing rep gives you more moderation tools. If there is a specific question/answer you need locked, contact a moderator. If a certain is "following" all of your activity and it has become a problem, contact the SO team for help with the issue. I know it is not ideal all the time, but it's part of community, there are times when there may be some people who you have to deal with, even if you would rather not. Jul 13, 2009 at 23:33
-
1I agree with everything you wrote, yshuditelu. I think the problem comes in that people see their rep as a reflection of themselves, something they have earned, and there is concern that the edits of others will impact that. I'm not saying that's really a defensible viewpoint, but that I can see how people may feel that way. Of course, as you point out, this can happen and there are ways to mitigate it if it does, whether that is rolling back, re-editing, reporting to moderators, or making community wiki. Jul 14, 2009 at 0:25
If you feel an edit was abusive, report it to the moderators. Otherwise:
If you are not comfortable with the idea of your posts being edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you.
If this were to be implemented, then some users would just simply mark everyone as not able to edit their posts. It would bring more harm to the site than good. And as much as I do disagree with Rich B on certain things, I do feel that him and his style (for lack of a better word), is probably the least harm out of all the possible worst case scenarios.
No system can be perfect, especially a system in which the public is allowed to define a portion of the ruleset. Our goal should be to make it the least bad thing out there.
-
you could limit the blocked users to some small number. And it would only be in effect if you have some certain number of hitpoints.– timJul 22, 2009 at 21:17