That's … interesting
Posted by aogMonday, 14 August 2006 at 23:06 TrackBack Ping URL

From Brothers Judd

In the meantime, folks have expressed a legitimate concern that when I diddle some comments then all comments become unreliable.

Yes, it’s the photo-editing problem in miniature, where any consistent pattern of editing makes everything suspect.

However, in the interests of fairness I promise not to ever edit a comment again, though I will in turn just go ahead and delete those that are offensive, false, and non-responsive, even if they also contain valid points.

I have mixed fellings about this. It seems that pointing out moving goal posts is also consider non-responsive so I’m not sure how much good this will do. On the other hand, it’s a step forward and after all, his weblog, his rules.

As I noted in that earlier post, it’s the invisibility that’s the problem, not the control. For instance, with this kind of issue, how do I know that others aren’t pointing out the counter-factuals and having their comments deleted? It is for this reason that the standard convention is to not delete, but to replace the content with a note that it was removed. This provides a much more accurate view, without sacrificing control. I don’t think it would take much more effort, either.

I know it’s obsessive, but I spent a lot of time at Brothers Judd and I still read it as much as any other weblog.

ON the other hand, I suppose I should have a policy as well, even though I don’t get enough comments to need one.

  • I reserve the right to edit for style. For instance, I tweaked up this comment by changing a URL to an embedded image, blockquoting and providing the link to the source of the quote. In particular, I will never hesitate to convert raw URLs in to actual links because long URLs mess up the page layout.
  • Correcting “your”/”you’re” and “its”/”it’s” is always permitted.
  • Editing for content will always be marked, and deleted comments marked as well (not that I have ever had to do either).
Comments — Formatting by Textile
Brit Tuesday, 15 August 2006 at 03:40

Deleting the aircraft thread was his big blooper, because it was clear that he did so for no other reason than embarrassment at losing the argument.

The big problem with editing comments is that it conflicts with his insistence on usernames. He doesn’t want anonymous comments, or people changing their names. But if the comments are edited, the names become meaningless anyway.

Orrin never, or very rarely, seems to visit other blogs. He appeared only very briefly on the Daily Duck and Think of England. It’s a pity, since it would be nice to occasionally see him playing the game without also having control of the rules.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 15 August 2006 at 07:30

OJ considers weblogs as end points, not interesting of themselves. His basic set of posting rules deprecates linking to other weblogs. He also spends so much time on Brothers Judd that I accept that reading (and particularly commenting) on other weblogs is something that’s going to fall by the wayside.

Still, memory holing the airplane thread was a bit of a low point. I also note that when he refers to it, he completely mistates the points in contention.

Brit Tuesday, 15 August 2006 at 07:46

I suspect rule 7 went by the wayside a long time ago…

Post a comment