So, the WMF apparently upped the character limit on edit summaries, from 250 to 1,000 characters. Naturally, the Wikipedians are up in arms at this challenge to their sovereignty.
A proposal has immediately been raised at the Village Pump to TURN IT OFF!!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Turn_off_extended_edit_summaries
Hilariously, this was launched with some basic errors in fact/history. This is common, since most English Wikipedians often forget there is a dedicated wiki where stuff like this, affecting all wikis, is explained/coordinated.....
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Edit_summary_length_for_non-Latin_languages
And of course, pending a solution, one distraught admin is posing the question, can they just nuke the edit summaries using rev-deletion.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#That_whole_thing_about_edit_summaries
Naturally, Wikipedians are being juvenile in how they demonstrate the disruptive nature of this new feature......because apparently you can't just imagine what 1,000 characters looks like, you have to do a 'test' which purposely disrupts the smooth working of Wikipedia. Wouldn't that be a WP:POINT violation?
Davey2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=828474487&oldid=828474286
Iridescent
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&diff=prev&oldid=828468395
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&diff=prev&oldid=828472537
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&diff=prev&oldid=828473208
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&diff=prev&oldid=828474896
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&diff=prev&oldid=828474943
The issue of course is not the length, a larger allowance is not disruptive in of itself, the disruption is from people misusing it (easily blocked), and that stupid piece of software which copies the beginning of edit into an edit summary if it was left blank. A hilariously ironic example here.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=828362259
That is the thing that needs to be changed. There's never really been a logical case for allowing blank edit summaries at all, but the precious Wikipedians would viciously oppose any attempt to make including one mandatory.
Edit summaries, now XXXL
-
badmachine
- Sucker
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 am
- Has thanked: 722 times
- Been thanked: 326 times
- Contact: