Posted by Dinah on December 3, 2009, at 10:54:14
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2009, at 3:14:42
> That would seem to preserve as much incivility to you as possible?
It would preserve the reality. If someone is uncivil to me, that's the reality.
>> My suggestion was actually to allow revisions to be made at any time
> Wouldn't that be more crazy-making? And, as Scott said, take away from the flow of a thread?
My proposal also included a link to the original, so not at all crazy-making. Flow would be interrupted, and some steps might need to be taken to keep Babble from being gutted by people wanting to effectively delete all their posts, but anyone reading the thread could click on the original.
It would have the advantage of answering the concerns of people who have posted, before they realized the google implications, identifying information (other than the sort you delete). Since that information would no longer be googleable, but would be available through the link inside the post, it would benefit a good number of posters who are now avoiding babble for google reasons.
While I truly do not see who it is that you are trying to benefit, since you brought it up as a civility measure. It would have been a wider benefit if you'd brought it up as a way to correct typos, mistaken doseages, incorrect medication names, etc. But who does it benefit as a civility measure? Those posters who wish to be able to be uncivil and avoid consequences by revising? How many of those people are there? But what is the potential for disruption and pain by a very few posters misusing the feature? This is a question of priorities. With which posters do your priorities lie?
>> honestly Dr. Bob, if you saw a post from someone who maybe didn't care for you overmuch in general, and that post sounded angry and offended, and you'd seen it had been edited, wouldn't it be just as likely that you would think that what had been edited out was pretty bad? Worse even than what might have actually been there? Well, you might not care, but I'd be incensed and certainly not have the reaction you propose. I'd wonder precisely what had been revised.
> I'd wonder, too, but I'd appreciate it if they'd tempered their post.
You are responding to this as if you believe the only use will be people who read their post and say oops. I didn't intend my post to read quite that way, let me amend it before it hurts anyone. While I am asking you about people who will express anger and/or hostility by deliberate attacks that are later amended to pretend they never happened. Besides, I'm not sure your response is typical. Did you try to put yourself in a poster's place?
> >> Yes, those who did and didn't see the original would have different realities. But people here already have different realities because of private communications.
>
>> They may have incomplete realities, but that's not the same as having different realities. If you need me to explain further I can.> I need you to explain further. Couldn't deleting an original post be considered making a reality incomplete?
A private communication takes place off board, and hopefully does not include anything that is completely different in the sense of opposing the reality of what is posted on board, although I suppose it could. It is known to only the very few posters who are involved in the private conversation.
An on board post that is posted and later revised is available to a large part of the Babble population before revision, depending on time involved. If the post later says something different, the reality of what is on Babble is changed. Those who saw one version have one version of reality. Those who saw the second version have a second version of reality. Only those who saw both versions have the actual reality.
You know, previous to this post, I had the idea that you understood what I was saying, that you understood that what I was worried about happening could and likely even would happen, but that you didn't care. Your priorities were elsewhere. There was no point in my responding further because you understood, but had chosen your priorities. What really flabbergasts me is that my proposal achieved what I'm guessing to be your goal, avoiding administrative consequences for incivility, while still preserving what I thought you counted dear. The integrity and unchanging nature of Babble posts. And what I counted dear, a consistent reality. So now I'm left wondering who your priorities do lie with and to what extent, since you are invested in hiding the original posts completely. Yet anyone can freeze any post any time by responding, although I'm not clear if responding to the thread is sufficient or if responding to that particular post is necessary. So the benefit to whoever it is you're trying to benefit is very limited.
Who are your priority in this?
poster:Dinah
thread:660662
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20091103/msgs/927927.html