[RathyKay]

Most of my edits occur within the first few minutes of posting to correct typos and whatnot. However, I love the way some of the threads on the GS/CD forum are regularly updated... especially the diagnostic journeys and the Gluten File.

Originally Posted by Wittesea

you can contact the moderator(s) of your forum and ask them to edit the post for you.

I was reading this thread (http://forums.braintalk2.org/showthr...?t=1200&page=2 post#13) and found it very disconcerting to see that Swift's thread was editted by kimmydawn. At the time, I did not know she was an administrator. From reading the rest of the thread, it seems the post was editted to spell out cerebral palsy, making it easier for the rest of the world to read it. Anyway, with the talk of not wanting folks to "change history," why are moderators allowed to edit and put words in our mouths? I can understand when moderators lock threads and delete a lot of imflammatory words, but spelling out cerebral palsy? Or did Swift request it? Or was there more to that post I don't know about? (Swift has always struck me as pretty polite, so I don't think it was an imflammatory post.) I assume you can't easily allow one person to edit one specific post from 6 months ago for a 24 hour time period?

Anyway, I don't know what the answer is. I just know I was upset to see Swift's post editted by kimmydawn and no reason given as to why.

[kimmydawn]

Hi and it's good to meet you.

Help was asked for here:

http://forums.braintalk2.org/showthr...cerebral+palsy

thanks for the concern.

KD

[RathyKay]

Originally Posted by kimmydawn

Help was asked for here:

http://forums.braintalk2.org/showthr...cerebral+palsy

Well, I feel a little better about Swift's case. But, I still don't like it. Wish I could articulate it better, but all I have is that gut feeling of "I don't like it."

[swift]

Originally Posted by RathyKay

I was reading this thread (http://forums.braintalk2.org/showthr...?t=1200&page=2 post#13) and found it very disconcerting to see that Swift's thread was editted by kimmydawn. At the time, I did not know she was an administrator. From reading the rest of the thread, it seems the post was editted to spell out cerebral palsy, making it easier for the rest of the world to read it. Anyway, with the talk of not wanting folks to "change history," why are moderators allowed to edit and put words in our mouths? I can understand when moderators lock threads and delete a lot of imflammatory words, but spelling out cerebral palsy? Or did Swift request it? Or was there more to that post I don't know about? (Swift has always struck me as pretty polite, so I don't think it was an imflammatory post.)

I asked for that to be changed - partly because my typing fatigues, and partly because I'm used to taking lectures, I abbreviate a lot...and a while after posting it I realised that CP does have other meanings too.

Swift

[Jaye]

I favor indefinite changes. To deal with the problem of the possible troublemaker changing their words, it's not beyond reach to hit the "quote" button and preserve a post in the very next post. If someone is going to make trouble, they're going to do it more than once, so missing the first time may not matter. I favor letting the deviant go a few times rather than holding everyone to a time limit.

People with Parkinson's (PWPs) have a similar problem to others, in that if someone goes "off"--meds/chemical costume not working---unpredictably, it might take hours or (sadly) days before a person can type or manage the buttons again.

The simple expedient of typing on another "page" such as a word processing program and then pasting the item to the reply screen is beyond what many a PWP can contemplate and/or fuss with.

Jaye

[jccgf]

From a practical standpoint, I really don't like the idea of not being able to get back to my own words, for very innocent and valid reasons that have already been discussed.

From a philosophical point of view, this is more of a civil liberties sort of issue. We are talking about taking away the rights of the majority who don't abuse the edit capability to control the minority who abuse it. I believe Doc John threw out some random figures suggesting perhaps only 1% abuse the capability, but that 1% can really wreak havoc. Even if 5% abuse the capability, is it right to take the edit ability away from the rest? Perhaps those who repeatedly abuse this do deserve to be banned?

In terms of effectiveness, if the main goal is to catch people in the act of their words, then the limit should revert back to 15 minutes. Once increased to a day or two, or even 90 minutes, is it really effective? It seems that is plenty of time for the "hit and change" abuse to occur.

While I've already seen some benefit of the words cast in stone, and I believe it would train some people to think before they speak, I still have a a hard time coming down in favor of any limit.

Do we really want to bog our moderators down with the mundane task of correcting and changing others posts?

Here is a new question.

Is there the technical capability to change the limit of edit time per user?
(I want to say privilege, but really??? editing our own words is a privilege???)

Would it be possible to put individuals who abuse the indefinite edit capability on "probation" by limiting their editing capability back to 15 minutes? or is there a review capability, where the post has to "pass" by a moderator before being added out, for those who have abused the editing capability?

Even if some false accusations were being made, the innocent might accept and even welcome an "edit probation" while working out a flaming or other negative situation. We tend to be more willing to give up our personal freedoms when we've actually been the target or recipient of wrongdoing...which probably explains the differences of opinions expressed here.

Cara

[jccgf]

As for how do people know if the new thread has been updated, either

1) it isn't important enough to call attention to (Like, "hey everybody, I corrected an expired/spent/changed link"), but those reviewing the thread or reading it for the first time will have the benefit of updated or corrected info

2) if it is really important and I want to be sure people see it, I add a post to the end of the thread, AND update it up at the top.

We may be highly organized, but most of our members seem to really appreciate that . Not all the forums operate as heavily on 'data' as we do, but we offer both support and data.

Cara

[aklap]

Originally Posted by jccglutenfree

We may be highly organized, but most of our members seem to really appreciate that . Not all the forums operate as heavily on 'data' as we do, but we offer both support and data.

For us [and many others] - Knowledge means Health. The more we know about our afflication, ourselves, our food, the healither we will be. The data [this is seperate from support that is offered] that we post, is crucial to our daily existance. Eating the wrong food can make us sick!

[west1]

Originally Posted by jccglutenfree

Is there the technical capability to change the limit of edit time per user?

If per user is not possible, then perhaps per forum, or some other method? According to the current vote tally, it appears that “Unlimited” is winning out, but if there are problems in the future I would hope it would be possible that everyone would not have to be restricted due to a few who might abuse this feature.

Also for those who might not be aware, there is a “Reason for Editing” field at the bottom of the edit screen. We should be courteous and use this, or perhaps put a note in our edited versions (when/where appropriate) so people would know why the post was edited. For small edits, just a few words should suffice. The time stamp is also updated at the bottom of the post after a post is edited (same place where the “Reason for Editing” is put).

[~KELLWANTSANSWERS~]

DocJohn

I think it is a great idea to add a poll asking us what we think
about this editing of the posts.
I am in favor of the unlimited editing.
Thank you for everything you have done here for us.
I think you are doing a great job!
~Kell~