in reply to
Post-Posting Etiquette
What the FSCK is the matter with people? I've posted reasonable
corrections or questions in reply to a few posts and then people
either edit their posts so history is totally fscked, or they rail
against me (in the CB as well) and THEN edit their posts to correct
their originals, with no mention of the fact made in the post. Is
there or is there not a history at this site? My suggestion is that
NOONE be allowed to change the content of their posts *period*. Either
make it simply impossible or at the very least make it only possible
to *append* to a post (at least an appendum is obvious). Changing
history is bad bad bad! No, it is worse than bad, it is a lie. Will
we support outright lying? What the hell is the problem with just
adding a correction instead of rewriting the answer or the code or
whatever? Doesn't anyone here have any freaking integrity?
|
Re: Re: Post-Posting Etiquette
by Django (Pilgrim) on Sep 04, 2002 at 08:49 UTC |
"Doesn't anyone here have any freaking integrity?"
The probably best way of proving that you have no integrity, is to post anonymously. Take responsibility for what you write! Necessary corrections are part of that responsibility.
~Django
"Why don't we ever challenge the spherical earth theory?"
| [reply] |
|
| [reply] |
|
| [reply] |
|
No, I didn't say that. My suggestion is rather that YOU shouldn't post anonimously.
~Django
"Why don't we ever challenge the spherical earth theory?"
| [reply] |
|
Interesting. Some say that there is a ghost haunting these very nodes. The ghost of a once great monk, a saint amongst saints. Perhaps even the second-highest XP monk in the Monastery. (Second, of course, to our fearless leader.) Forced to never again use his true name here, for fear of his job, he still finds time to give back to the community, in the guise of the nameless one. For that matter, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were a few around here that have taken vows of anonymoity.
Confession: It does an Immortal Body good.
| [reply] |
|
django says :
The probably best way of proving that you have no integrity, is to post anonymously. Take responsibility for what you write! Necessary corrections are part of that responsibility.
Let's finally dismiss the idea that posting with a registered username has anything to do with integrity, or honesty, or anything else. I'm sure you were around to see vroom and tye shake out the votebots and multiple user ids (hi, eliza! hi slurpee machine!), but you're still willing to put more credibility into a pseudonymous post than an anonymous post? I don't think that makes much sense at all.
perlmonks has an entirely different anonymous community than slashdot, which seems to be the primary source of the 'anonymous posters aren't to be trusted' line of thinking. Perlmonks is not slashdot. There have been many intelligent and insightful posts that come from people who don't want to be identified with a particular user id, or, for that matter, don't care to be identified at all.
Don't hate them just because they're anonymous, mmkay?
| [reply] |
|
I agree with the sentiment that posting anonymously does not necessarily imply lack of integrity (or of any other positive quality). Sometimes it merely signifies that the poster happens to be using a machine configured to refuse cookies, as was the case with a recent consulting client of mine.
Not that I actually posted anything, being so busy on that particular contract assignment, but had I tried to do so, it would have been anonymous.
(This particular company had configured its proxy server to somehow authenticate based on the user's NT login credentials, Internet Explorer being the only supported browser. Absent multi-level approval, consultants were not given any outside access through the proxy/firewall, the process for obtaining which would have taken longer than the term of my contract (assuming a suitable business reason could be concocted). Because access to certain sites was occasionally required by my job description, my manager opted to (illegally) provide me with his NT login. Since the firm used NT roaming profiles, every cookie I produced would eventually find its way onto the his machine. Also, everything was heavily tracked and logged, etc. A nightmarish environment I'm glad I'm no longer part of. But I digress.)
Just as Perl itself (unlike Java, C++ and other C-like languages) provides no comprehensive facilities for restricting users of any particular facility (e.g., module or class) to a set of rules (a la strong type-checking), instead being satisfied with specifying guidelines which, when followed, will produce desired behavior; so too on PerkMonks, posting anonymously does not necessarily imply a lack of trustworthiness, regardless of the number of less-than-credible posts which may have been made anonymously.
In even more other words, just because most (or maybe even all?) unscrupulous posts are made anonymously, does not prove that all anonymous posts are unscrupulous.
dmm
| [reply] |
|
I have to correct my statement: The fact that someone wants to stay anonymous does NOT imply anything on h(is|er) integrity.
I just wanted to say that putting your name under a writing might imply that you take responsibility for what you write.
When someone edits a lot in h(er|is) posts, it might be a sign that s?he really cares about it.
Peace to Anonymous Monk!
~Django
"Why don't we ever challenge the spherical earth theory?"
| [reply] |
Re: Re: Post-Posting Etiquette
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Sep 04, 2002 at 19:56 UTC |
The very freedom of speech you (assuming you are quent) decry on your home node allows users to edit their replies at will. I strongly support correcting typos and rephrasing things to make them more clear, and I'm strongly opposed to removing answers because they weren't "fast enough" or blanking out messages in a flameup.
I'm personally opposed to removing the ability to edit posts, however. I much prefer community standards to push people to own up to their words and to mark significant updates appropriately. Please don't generalize that that makes me "support outright lying", and please try to refrain from questioning the integrity of the thousands of users you've unfairly condemned.
| [reply] |
|
|
