OpenUru.org

In forums we have the concept of revisionist posting. There are several aspects to the idea. The simple meaning is changing a published post. The more complex definition comes from RL and is what we think of as rewriting history. There are many shades in between.

In the Uru fan forums we mostly mean changing a post to change its meaning, hiding a mistake rather than correcting it and removing an embarrassment rather than owning up to it.

Much of whether a change is considered revisionist is in the motivation for the change. For this reason many people can get upset. We can’t know another’s motivation unless they tell us. But we can speculate and have beliefs. Someone’s behavior in certain circumstances can seem too self serving to ignore. Our experience in past situation leads us to believe we know why they took an action. Often we assign a motivation we know which has motivated us at one time, which is what transference is about. No matter how convinced we are, we can’t know another’s heart or mind.

To avoid misperceptions of others actions and flames about changes some forums lock a thread after so many hours. After the time limit it cannot be edited. Others just note the change at the bottom of the post. Others make no note of changes.

Which is the more intelligent way to handle changes?

Imposed Limits
An imposed limit creates a window in which to make changes. It restricts what forum members can do. I’m not a big fan of imposed limits. I see it as trying to legislate honest behavior, impossible. But, if a forum has a number of difficult people it can reduce problems.

However time limit editing prevents threads like the Important Posts at MOUL. I think that decreases the usefulness of a forum.

Unlimited Changes
One can go back whenever and make changes to a post, even years later. I see this as a better choice for the forum operation but it does present a number of problems to those posting and moderating.

When one can go back and change the meaning of a post it can make subsequent posts non-sequitur and confusing to the reader. Those with an emotional stake in a thread may make changes to make following posters look foolish or deceitfully win a point or any number of negative reasons.

When one goes back to make significant changes they are intellectually honest and helpful to the reader when they annotate and explain the change. It also avoids providing the foundation for charges of being a revisionist or intellectually dishonest. I think annotated changes are the more experienced, mature and thoughtful way to make changes.

Opinions and beliefs do change over time. Correcting an old post to reflect a new belief is the heart of revisionism. In itself, revisionism is neither right nor wrong. It is all in how one makes the change and why they are changing a particular post. Adding a note about your conversion/adoption of a new line of thinking is intellectually honest and maintains the line of thinking in the thread.

Cross Referencing Posts
People do cross reference and refer to posts. Changing the meaning of a post can make the cross reference confusing. So, again it is important to maintain a clear line of thinking when one changes posts.

Some people attempt to use cross references for petty purposes. It’s sort of a live this down thing. Well, the author wrote it. But do they deserve to be saddled with it for life? Also, do they deserve a pass for writing something dumb? Without consequences there is no learning.

My belief is one can acknowledge their mistake in a post edit/addition. When one is being teased in a good natured way none of this is an issue and acknowledgement is easy. But, when it moves beyond good natured teasing and fun it shows a measure of character to acknowledge a mistake, let it stand and acknowledge it. That usually defuses the one doing the teasing, pushing the issue. Their continuing after that makes them look petty and shows their character.

In some cases people use signatures to references posts. I’ve seen those signatures used to attack a person and misrepresent a post, sometimes honestly and sometime not. After all how many will read the context around the post to get an accurate understanding? Is it then fair to address that use of the referenced post by adding an annotated edit to it? These are interesting uses, or miss uses, of links. The poster referred to may never realize what is being done. So, in some measure it gives one an unfair advantage. Of course on the other hand when one adds to a post to correct such a misrepresentation they gain an advantage.

Annotations
I think we have all seen the forum annotations. An example is in the first two posts of the Guild of Cartographers’ Resource List, look at the bottom of each post. These types of posts one can expect the reader to understand they will change from time to time. The system annotation is adequate.

I suspect many of us have seen little notes at the end of posts about fixing links and typos. I like these. I think they are a nice consideration of the reader.

Changes that change the meaning of the post should be clearly and noticeably annotated. Sometimes I will change the original text in place and put an unchanged copy of it in the annotation. Sometimes I will put the original text in ( ) and note what it is and why changed. I’m inconsistent in my style. I think as long as it is clear to the reader it does not matter.

Moderators and Posters' Changes
We have another thread about moderator changes, so post those ideas in that thread.

What many people do not realize is the moderators can see when posts are changed. Most forums have a change log. In some forums the actual change are visible. When there is a dispute about an individual’s changing a post should the moderator step in with the factual data? Be an arbitrator?

A difficult question: Often the "top post" needs to remain editable, maybe because it is a consolidation of information submitted throughout the thread. Occasionally, the thread title needs to be changed, which means editing the first post, but that can be done by a mod.

It really comes down to whether people are editing the post to correct, minor typographical errors, or to make more significant edits. Even that can be questionable, as a change of punctuation can often change the way text is interpreted ("A panda bear eats, shoots and leaves" or "A panda bear eats shoots and leaves").

As well as the time limited editing, some systems allow edits only until a further reply is posted. This is an attempt to stop a post being changed once it has been referenced or quoted but isn't completely effective. There is no system I know of that can track cross-references from other threads, let alone from other forums.

Nalates wrote:I suspect many of us have seen little notes at the end of posts about fixing links and typos. I like these. I think they are a nice consideration of the reader.

Yes, and phpBB3 actually provides a box on the edit page for you to enter a reason for editing a post. Snag is, it is a little below the "submit" button, meaning that it is easily missed, even by a concientious poster. Usually, you will also get an "Edited n times" type of message too.

But yes, requiring that a reason should always be given for editing a post (even by a mod) would help to give some sense of transparency, although it wouldn't preclude someone dishonestly passing off a significant change as "fixed some typos".

You're correct. 'Editing Typo' can be misused. The person doing that is engaging in behavior many of would consider dishonest.

I do like the freedom of being able to go back and edit posts. I think there are more benefits than disadvantages.

I do not like the idea of all being punished for one individuals bad behavior. It is much more work to deal with a person and pass judgement on their behavior. I think most people are uncomfortable with having to engage in actions that cause conflict with and categorize people. I think we see more and more of those problems in society. I think we just have to deal with the issues some people bring.

In the topic of revisionist changes it is really up to the individual. I know people that will change their posts for what I consider less than meritorious reasons. When debating certain people I copy their posts and file them. But one could change those and say the original poster changed... its not really proof of anything nor protection. While it can give one peace of mind, it does little for the debate.

In such cases, can one expect a moderator to step up and comment on the edits?

Or be asked to confirm or deny and edit?

Which system do you prefer?

Nalates wrote:In such cases, can one expect a moderator to step up and comment on the edits?

Or be asked to confirm or deny and edit?

Hmm, I don't think that is possible, at least not in a "vanilla" phpBB3 installation. Looking at the Moderator Control Panel Logs, I can see posts that have been edited, but the edit itself is not detailed, so the orignal text is not recoverable. Further, I don't see an approved phpBB3 Mod available that does this. This is unlike MediaWiki where a complete change history is recorded and any edits can be reverted.

It's a lot like conversation versus books. Treat forums like conversation (or debate) and the wiki like a book and it makes more sense. Forums are a poor written history or archive except as a means for search. You just ask people to be nice while they're talking with each other and maybe not put too much weight on history because how many people read through an archive of forum threads to put it all in context? How many posts are called to task or specifically remembered one year later? Time makes individual posts fairly well irrelevant. It's the memories of the participants and the consolidated histories (published matter) that has the real value. Hence my push for projects that use forums as a means toward tangible results. Forums are informal, books are formal, and how seriously you should take each one depends on that.

I will add to this that sustained accuracy in forums is relevant and important to deflect prevailing opinion away from the falsehoods before they propagate so to keep a truer course of knowledge and opinion. That's very much in the now, like conversation.

JW Platts comments above are very much the view I took with the website I set up for a technical group I chair: We use the forums for the discussion and debate, then distill the results down into wiki pages. In effect, this is closing the loop on some of the comments on the use of wiki talk pages from the Intents and Goals thread.

I think what Nalates was raising a concern about was the "integrity" question, where a post gets edited to put the poster in a more favourable light or to discredit another poster. I have seen some threads (elsewhere) where whole chunks of discussion don't make sense, until you realise that an earlier post has been edited making the subsequent replies look stupid.

I guess there's not much you can do about it. A mod could annotate the post (if the originator does not do so) simply to state that the post was edited, but the mod probably couldn't say with certaintity what had actually changed. An honest poster might annotate with "Corrected error of fact, based on reply from xxxx", but I suppose the main thing is to actually to defuse any potential conflicts before they develop into major issues.

Mac_Fife wrote:... I suppose the main thing is to actually to defuse any potential conflicts before they develop into major issues.

One difficulty here, thinking of the current Uru 'community', is that there are already deep-rooted conflicts between the various groups.

I realise now I have been guilty of revisionism in a situation where a friend was being attacked in his absence. I was so tired of the negativism, cynicism and sarcasm of many of the posts, and of trying with others to counter them, that I posted a quiet 'Goodbye' -- then thought better of it but in that moment the thread had been removed for consideration of the moderators. When the thread reappeared, I was able to edit the post.

This was remarked on in another fan-run forum. I posted in that forum an explanation of the original post and its change. Since then, I haven't bothered visiting that forum.

As I said here before, I have a lot to learn from these discussions. The MOUL community forums are the first forums I have taken part in.

There is a real problem though with several of the forums associated with Myst/Uru -- the unpleasantness and conflict puts people off from contributing and (in the end) even reading or visiting them.

I posted a reply to Dot's post above, but decided that it was better as a continuation of the Forum Moderator Issues thread instead.

Once one understands how people can misuse and twist the things we do, we can tread more carefully. Politicians are learning what the new video age means. Everything is recorded like forum posts. Their changes of position are often revealing. Annotating a post change does a lot to stop misuse and speculation.

While Dot’s change fits part of the definition of ‘revisionism’ it did not come from a desire to misrepresent a position or concept. Dot, thought better of, what I’ll call, an emotional response. Having posts editable allows one to change their mind. Annotating a change maintains the integrity of the thread. Plus being up front about changing ones mind or admitting a mistake is a sign of maturity. Learning to annotate changes in an adversarial forum is a just a matter of experience.

The part of the definition of revisionism that matters on forums is really the motive. On a less adversarial forum Dot’s change would have been seen for what it was. But, the blood in the water was about MOUL deleting a thread that had not been deleted. Once the facts started coming out, some people were too far in to back down. I think Dot’s post in that situation was a handy diversion to support a viewpoint. Plus there are old grudges to settle by taking shots.

None of these things are things that rules can control. A moderator can't know all the interpersonal interactions going on or all the personal histories. So, to some extent handling these issues is up to the posters. I don't see where moderators can do much to control it. At best a forum guide line educates people. The most I see a moderator being able to do is point out the idea of annotation to those that get in trouble or those being reported.

Nalates wrote:The most I see a moderator being able to do is point out the idea of annotation to those that get in trouble or those being reported.

Most probably Nalates is right. And here I think it is a real shame that the more popular phpBB templates put the "Reason for editing this post" field at the bottom of the "Options" panel: This is well below the Preview and Submit buttons, and is easily missed by a poster, especially because a) it is a field is not present when creating a post, only when editing one, and b) it does not feature in phpBB2 based forums, such as the MOUL fourums. As a result, people generally aren't looking for that box. IMHO that box sould be under the "Subject" field when editing a post. It'd also be nice if it could be an admistrative option to make filling the box mandatory. Maybe these are things I should take up with the phpBB Development community.