Edit - Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Rev

5

-1. Not really related to the original question, IMHO.
– Arseni Mourzenko
Commented Jul 9, 2011 at 1:24
1

Pete, I agree with you. If you simply leave off the @symbol, I don't believe it will be auto-removed. As a PhD in Statistics, I share a very similar desire to maintain professionalism (when it's warranted) and quirky humor when it's not. :O)
– M. Tibbits
Commented Jul 9, 2011 at 3:21
8

This "leaving errors sit while begging the author to fix them" thing really kinda bugs me. Yes, these sites do aim for a delicate balance between encouraging collaboration and encouraging competition, but... Simply refraining to fix things you know are wrong out of some misguided sense of respect for the original author is no more appropriate here than it is on Wikipedia. (I realize this wasn't the point you were intending to make, but my attention was totally derailed upon reading that section)
– Shog9
Commented Jul 9, 2011 at 3:22
1

@MainMa and yet utterly related to the entire conversation as it has evolved
– JockM
Commented Jul 9, 2011 at 6:05
8

@MainMa: the original question is not a question -- it is a response to a recent change in the SE platform. I wanted to make a similar response, and since mine is, broadly speaking, an assent to T.J. Crowder's response, it seems appropriate to post is as an "answer" rather than as a new "question". In this situation, as I understand it a downvote should mean that you disagree with the opinion I am expressing. Is that the case here: do you not believe that the new policy is a form of censorship and/or that it is problematic? I am interested to know what others think.
– Pete L. Clark
Commented Jul 9, 2011 at 6:45
8

@MainMa: How it is not related? I said I wanted the new practice removed, for my reasons. He's saying he wants it removed too, for his reasons. Seems pretty darned related to me. :-)
– T.J. Crowder
Commented Jul 9, 2011 at 8:19
9

@Shog9: "and invoking the system is the only good reason to begin your comment with an @" -- That's just crazy. The only reason I begin a comment with an @ is to make clear to someone that I'm talking about a person. Remember that we have lots of people who have usernames that are acronyms or trade names or plain lowercase words, like @unwind and @chaos and @Eclipse and @MSN. The "@" disambiguates between a username and a plain word or proper noun. It's good for promoting clarity. Please stop trying to treat this as a pollution issue.
– Jason S
Commented Jul 9, 2011 at 17:40
3

@Shog9: I have to "give examples" why censoring my writing without telling me hampers my ability to express myself? In 2011?? I'm honestly pretty perplexed by this. As I said, John Milton wrote about this in 1644; I'm not going to do a better job than he did. I am definitely operating under the assumption that the SE team are participating members of modern Western society, so that if you stepped back from the particulars of this issue, you actually understand quite well what I am saying. Right?
– Pete L. Clark
Commented Jul 9, 2011 at 23:43
2

@Shog9: My guess is what you actually mean is something like this: "Censorship is a harsh and even somewhat loaded word. When you use it, you imply that something really bad is being done. But this is so minor that you should be able to easily adjust to it, if you notice it at all." To that I say: yes, stripping away things like Hello, Dear X and @Y are quite minor as far as censorship goes. The time to complain about censorship is when it starts up a little bit, not when it gets totally out of hand (I imagine complaints are harder at that point).
– Pete L. Clark
Commented Jul 9, 2011 at 23:51
4

@Shog9: Manually editing out greetings is not done on math.SE and certainly not in any other community that I belong to. But again the distinction here is between doing something manually after the fact that leaves a record and doing something automatically before the fact that leaves no record. Just so you know: that someone who is designing code for a webpage thinks s/he can decide in advance which of my writing is "superfluous verbiage" inspires a profoundly negative emotional response in me. As a form of censorship, it is significant to me. Please be aware of that.
– Pete L. Clark
Commented Jul 9, 2011 at 23:56
3

@Shog9: it's both. It really does hamper my ability to express myself, and on principle I get upset when you write routines to mess with my writing before anyone can see it. And not just me -- this is centuries of social precedent. I do think it's most important to appreciate that. But since you ask...
– Pete L. Clark
Commented Jul 10, 2011 at 0:02
4

When I make a comment to an answer, I could for instance be adding something else mathematically to the answer, or I could be engaging the OP directly. It definitely changes the meaning if you strip away the @username entirely. For instance if I write: "@A: Theorem B holds" then I am drawing Theorem B to the attention of user A, and thereby implying that she doesn't know Theorem B already. If I omit @A, then I am directing it to whoever may be reading the question. If the @A gets stripped away a "Yes, I know Theorem B. Why are you suggesting I don't?" response may be coming.
– Pete L. Clark
Commented Jul 10, 2011 at 0:06
3

So, yes, this has effects, including possibly offending someone whom you had no intention of offending. Yes, you can work around this by remembering to omit the @ in this situation (or in other ways that I will not get into here). But now I have to keep in my head some fairly complicated site mechanics just to carry out a mathematical conversation: thus my ability to express myself is actually hampered.
– Pete L. Clark
Commented Jul 10, 2011 at 0:11
3

@Shog9: I am all for collaborative editing. This is done between people in a way which is best for them both. Writing programs to change my writing is not collaboration: it is, again, censorship. If SE feels that some censorship is necessary to run the site, that is your right. I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm explaining why this is incredibly problematic to me and, by implication, to a lot of the high-quality users the site should be courting, not alienating. In the long run other sites roughly similar to SE but without these problematic features will spring up, of course.
– Pete L. Clark
Commented Jul 10, 2011 at 0:18
5

@Shog9: Thank you for your help, but I am well aware of workarounds to the "feature". As with the OP, I am not asking a question here. I am expressing a serious frustration with the system. I think by now you've understood well what it is that I find problematic. That's all I wanted: to express myself.
– Pete L. Clark
Commented Jul 10, 2011 at 0:22

| Show 21 more comments

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
indent code by 4 spaces
backtick escapes `like _so_`
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »