tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits)

Bill Dubuque comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7401)

Bill Dubuque — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:19:18 -0700

Thanks to everybody for all the informative replies. You've convinced me that I'm probably worried too much about events that will occur only rarely if ever. Apologies for letting past (non-MO) events cause me worries where they shouldn't have. I'll do my best to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Kevin Lin comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7399)

Kevin Lin — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:07:54 -0700

I think that many of us are at least somewhat sympathetic to your concerns. But unfortunately, we are stuck with the StackExchange software, and we are unable -- for now -- make any such changes. Unfortunately -- for now -- we can only say, caveat emptor -- if you don't like it, sorry, tough luck.

Noah Snyder comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7398)

Noah Snyder — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:00:04 -0700

We don't have control over the CW threshold. It also doesn't seem to be hit very often.

Bill Dubuque comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7397)

Bill Dubuque — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:58:40 -0700

One of the issues I mentioned in the first post has received no discussion. Namely, if trivial edits *are* highly encouraged then perhaps it might make sense to raise the CW threshold a bit.

José Figueroa comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7395)

José Figueroa — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:48:09 -0700

I fail to see what the big deal is about one's question/answer being edited by another MO user. Barring the rare edit-war (in which I would expect, perhaps optimistically, that the MO community would not indulge), there's always the possibility of rolling back. While this may be a minor annoyance or waste of time or... no lasting damage is done and one can be sure that one's question/answer says exactly what one intended it to say.

alex_o comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7394)

alex_o — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:11:01 -0700

I'm not sure that all the substantive issues have been dealt with. Abstracting away from the specific complaints that prompted Bill Dubuque's inquiry, its clear that
community editing has both pluses and minuses. On the one hand, theres no question that there are tremendous benefits in having various minor errors instantly corrected by the community.

On the other hand, there is the possibility that edits would go against the intention of the original poster.

Example 1: the original poster deliberately uses some non-standard notation, which someone rewrites.

Example 2: the original poster uses some non-standard stylistic choices, which someone rewrites.

Example 3: someone edits a post while misunderstanding the point of the question, which might, for example, lead him/her to delete some material as irrelevant.

Example 4: someone makes a perfectly legitimate edit, but the original poster blows up with anger. This is not implausible, given how unusual it is in academia
for someone to edit your work without your explicitly given consent!

A possible solution: have some sort of checkbox you can tick to make your question uneditable by others.

I realize the above may be too difficult to implement - from perusing the meta threads, I gather that making changes to the site is
tricky business.

Roy Maclean comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7388)

Roy Maclean — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:16:57 -0700

I think it was Poincare (sic) who said he never spent time fixing typos because time was too valuable.

Bill Dubuque comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7339)

Bill Dubuque — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:38:40 -0700

@Scott: Why not leave it open on the chance that others may chime in at some later date?

Mariano comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7332)

Mariano — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:55:59 -0700

(Can't we simply stop posting instead?)

Scott Morrison comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7328)

Scott Morrison — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:46:42 -0700

Does anyone mind if I close this thread? I think the substantive issues have been dealt with.

Bill Dubuque comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7322)

Bill Dubuque — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:47:53 -0700

@J The flame war had roots in a long history outside of MO. I don't object to people editing my posts as long as they are sensitive to those issues I raised above.

jbl comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7321)

jbl — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:30:36 -0700

@Bill: Judging by comments so far, there is a clear consensus that this community condones editing for both substantive and superficial reasons and that some people will steer clear of editing your posts in order to avoid further flame wars.

Bill Dubuque comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7320)

Bill Dubuque — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:27:05 -0700

@Andy: community editing is *not* a feature if it is abused, esp. if it destroys important semantic content.

Bill Dubuque comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7319)

Bill Dubuque — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:20:56 -0700

@Noah: In case it was not clear, my purpose here is certainly not to "fight". Frankly I have no clue what value the general MO community places on the value of nitpicking edits vs. the possible destruction of semantical content, etc. Replies so far seem to indicate that opinion is mixed.

Bill Dubuque comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7318)

Bill Dubuque — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:10:36 -0700

@Andy: To be sure, it was not I who proposed any special treatment. My point here was to try to understand the various viewpoints people hold on such matters. I have no doubts that my views on such aesthetics are stronger than the typical MO user, but I know for a fact that there are other mathematicians who feel even more strongly than I about such matters, and I'd hate to lose them on MO due to a similar issue down the road - esp. when the solution could be something as simple as a link in the FAQ to some meta thread about issues to keep in mind when editing posts.

Bill Dubuque comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7317)

Bill Dubuque — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:57:12 -0700

@Noah: clearly we disagree on the importance of such aesthetic matters. But is that any reason to write as you do in your first post above? As the MO community grows larger there will no doubt be further concerns along such lines.

Noah Snyder comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7316)

Noah Snyder — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:51:52 -0700

Hrm, on further thought, rereading Andy's last point, I've changed my mind. MO isn't for everyone. The point of MO is to give good answers to questions. The ability to edit makes those answers better for all the people reading the question later. So I think you're right that it's important not to compromise on the general principal that questions and answers are edited by the community to improve them.

However, on issues of spelling or italicization this hardly seems worth it. I'd rather have this fight over a more *substantive* edit.

Bill Dubuque comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7315)

Bill Dubuque — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:51:22 -0700

Another point worth emphasis is that experience plays a role here. Younger members of the MO community who were brought up in a wiki world are quite comfortable with community editing paradigms. But contrast that to say an emeritus professor who joins MO, who is used to having much more control over what he writes. If e.g. some MO undergrad makes some trite syntactical edit to one of the prof's first posts that inadvertently spoils some semantic content then that could possibly scare off the prof. It is important that there be mutual respect for the diverse backgrounds of the entire MO community. Appropriate remarks in the FAQ can help to ensure that members are aware of such issues.

Noah Snyder comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7314)

Noah Snyder — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:46:39 -0700

@Andy: I don't think "MO should have no typos" is a sufficiently important point for us to stand on. If Bill asks a bad question since we can't edit it we'll just close it. Typos and typesetting are just not important enough to fight about.

Noah Snyder comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7313)

Noah Snyder — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:44:40 -0700

I think the solution is clear:
-If you see one of Bill's posts don't edit it.
-Behave exactly as before with respect to all other people's posts.

No one else has complained, and I for one certainly appreciate it when people correct my posts. I don't see anything productive in continuing this discussion further. Clearly Bill feels very strongly on this point, and we're not going to talk him out of it. Nor is he going to convince any of us that this is not an idiosyncratic issue. So let's just let it go.

Andy Putman comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7312)

Andy Putman — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:42:14 -0700

@Harry : I don't think it's a good idea for someone to be able to exclude themselves from the standard practices of MO.

Harry Gindi comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7311)

Harry Gindi — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:40:19 -0700

Anyone who does not want high rep users to edit his/her posts can ask us not to on meta.

Andy Putman comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7310)

Andy Putman — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:40:15 -0700

@Bill : The standard rules of grammar, spelling, etc exist to make things clearer and less ambiguous. This is not usenet or irc, and the conventions of those fora are inappropriate here.

I also think that trying to use html to make things align in certain ways, etc is doomed to failure. Browsers display things very differently. If I see a post that has weird spacing or the like, then I'm going to edit it so that it will render correctly.

As people have said, community editing (by high-rep users in the case of non-CW posts) is a feature, not a bug. If you don't like it, then there are plenty of other places on the internet to talk math.

Bill Dubuque comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7308)

Bill Dubuque — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:34:02 -0700

@Harry: I happen to know several mathematicians who feel even more strongly about such matters than do I. It's not at all unusual for aesthetics to play a large role in how one communicates mathematics.

Harry Gindi comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7307)

Harry Gindi — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:28:47 -0700

If you don't want people editing your posts, I'm sure that asking us on meta not to do so will deal with 95% of the cases. To be honest, you are the first person who has really cared about the issue, so instead of adopting a general policy of not editing posts, it's easier just to specifically avoid editing your posts.

Bill Dubuque comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7304)

Bill Dubuque — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:19:39 -0700

@WW perhaps you missed the part I wrote above "while it is harder to maintain such control say in html, it still can be done to a limited extent". My point is that nitpicking editors should keep in mind that there are some authors who have very strong aesthetics that impact how they choose to display what they write. E.g. not too infrequently I will align proofs so that the syntax makes semantic content transparent, e.g. so that substitutions are obvious, etc. This may seem trite locally, but globally it may contribute to an effect that makes the proof "comprehensible in a single glance" or some similar global goal. This is one of many similar reasons why one should exercise great care when making nitpicking edits. Imho the risk of destroying mathematical semantic content should always be weighed against the value of nitpicking syntactical corrections. I have no qualms whatseover about breaking rules of grammar, punctuation, etc. if it is necessary to make the mathematics more illuminating - kind of a "proof without words that got in the way". If an author explicitly makes such a value judgement, this should be respected by an editor if at all possible.

Bill Dubuque comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7303)

Bill Dubuque — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:07:29 -0700

Harry, thanks much for the link. I think it would be worthwhile to say something in the FAQ on such issues. If it weren't for the impact on CW, I wouldn't have any major issue with nitpicking edits (presuming care is exercised regarding the issues I mention in my initial post).

Harry Gindi comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7300)

Harry Gindi — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:40:40 -0700

I guess it wasn't in the FAQ (I'm reasonably certain that I have not read the current revision).

Scott Morrison (one of our moderators) said it in this thread on meta. For those of you just joining us, I am fpqc.

WillieWong comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7298)

WillieWong — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:38:40 -0700

@Harry: which section are you talking about in particular? I just searched the FAQ and cannot find the phrase "be bold". May you be paraphrasing?

WillieWong comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7297)

WillieWong — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:36:53 -0700

Bill: I just noticed your edit (second paragraph to your original post). Please be advised that the actual rendering of MO depends on the computer, the browser, the operating system, and the fonts installed (thankfully it doesn't depend on the size of the browser window). This behaviour is rather different from what happens in a pure text-based medium. While I understand the desire to use presentation to add emphasis to content, I think any attempts at such is ultimately doomed to failure (this is, generically, a problem of web-based media and why in the past couple of years presentation-intensive websites have gravitated toward Flash).

Also, even if you are advocating for change, the context and the content of this post really suggests to me to be an etiquette issue than a feature issue. I am almost certain that "feature requests" are usually used for technical/technological improvements to the website, as opposed to policy changes.

Harry Gindi comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7296)

Harry Gindi — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:26:31 -0700

Does MO have some explicit policy that encourages edits that are nitpicking? (e.g. correction of typos).

Yes. See the section containing the text "be bold" in the FAQ.

Bill Dubuque comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7294)

Bill Dubuque — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:55:18 -0700

@WW Perhaps, but it can also be viewed as requesting a change to the CW thresholds, or to policies around such.

WillieWong comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7291)

WillieWong — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:40:06 -0700

@Bill and the Mods: this probably should belong to the Etiquette category instead of Feature Requests.

Bill Dubuque comments on "CW threshold vs. nitpicking edits" (7288)

Bill Dubuque — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:02:49 -0700

Does MO have some explicit policy that encourages edits that are nitpicking? (e.g. correction of typos). Imho such edits should be reserved for more serious matters since, e.g. if a few people fix typos then that may discourage a 4th user from making a more serious correction for fear of bumping the post to CW. Nitpickers should keep in mind that not every typo-laden author has control over such, e.g. I know a few people who have RSI problems so severe that it is a pain (literally) to fix typos, and others who suffer from dyslexia, etc. Such individuals should not have to worry about their posts being pushed into CW much sooner due to the whims of pedantic editors.

Also, please keep in mind that some people will purposely break rules of grammar, punctuation, etc in order to better maintain control of how things are rendered (e.g. contractions needed to keep a sentence from overflowing to another line thus destroying explicitly designed spatial proximity between two semantically connected mathematical items). In fact I do such quite heavily in text-based forums (e.g. usenet newsgroups) and while it is harder to maintain such control say in html, it still can be done to a limited extent. So why risk the possibility of destroying such carefully crafted semantical structure for nitpicking syntactical corrections? After all, we're here to discuss mathematics - not grammar.