Suggested Minor/Major Editing Privileges/Process
This is based on @weegee 's message here that I’m replying to, as well as a series of other messages from/to @Olin who has some very real concerns about when/how one user can edit another user’s post.
This is all the same for Questions and Answers (except of course that some pieces - tags, title - are only applicable to Questions).
Minor vs. Major Edits
-
Minor Edits include relatively small changes - spelling, grammar, punctuation, style, markdown (newbies often get confused by markdown syntax), etc. Code changes that are incidental (e.g., formatting, clearly missing pieces at start of end of pasted code).
-
Major Edits include tag changes, any content changes that add or remove significant meaning (which can be as small as a single word), rearranging of content in a way that changes meaning (“try a then b then c” → “try c then b then a”), code changes that affect the problem (e.g., correction of an obvious typo in a variable name might fix the problem - but that should be an answer (or a comment) and not a change to the original code).
I am torn about the question of “Title Changes”. The title is the most important item and therefore “any” change is “important”, but I think changing “MY HOT WATER HEETER LEEKS” to “My Hot Water Heater is Leaking” should be “minor” because it does not change the meaning. So if my process is approved we’ll have to get consensus on “Title” - Minor vs. Major.
-
Approvals Needed - Minor and Major will have separate, per community (default = per instance) values. This could be Minor = 2, Major = 2, could be Minor = 1 (since “minor”), Major = 2; etc. I suggest min 1 max 2 for Minor, min 1 max 4 for Major, but this can be worked out over time for each community.
NEW Optional Major Edit Restriction
This is to satisfy Olin’s concern about users making significant content changes to other people’s Q or A. The reasons for using this setting could include:
- True “expert” users where the user is concerned about non-experts making innocent but inappropriate changes that affect the meaning of the post.
- Controversial (e.g., Religion, Politics, etc.) posts where changes could be misconstrued in a way that significantly changes the author’s original intent (or even deliberately trying to sneak things past the Approval process).
This will be done using a new flag/boolean:
- Provide a flag in each User’s Profile titled Allow Major Edits Default = True/Yes/Enabled
- Provide a flag for each Q/A titled Allow Major Edits Default = From User’s Profile. Can be changed by Author at any time. Can not be changed by anyone else under normal circumstances.
- If the Q/A is changed to “Community Wiki” (or equivalent, assuming we have such a thing) then for that Q/A only, the flag is forced to True/Yes/Enabled even if previously False/No/Disabled.
- A change by a User to this setting in the Profile does not affect any already created Q or A.
- Moderators and other users with full Editor privilege will always be able to make Major Edits. This is to allow for content changes that are either urgent (dangerous information (e.g., need to add a warning or make important corrections) or any sort of “bad” stuff that falls short of “Close/Delete”) as well as to allow later Major Edits if the user is no longer active but changes are considered necessary.
Privileges
The following privileges should be available. Names can be changed, of course, and the process (points, time on site, questions asked/answered/etc. - the whole “rep” discussion…elsewhere to decide).
-
Minor Edit Approval - Allows a user to review Minor Edits (queue and/or when viewing a Q/A) and make one of the required approvals.
-
Major Edit Approval - Allows a user to review Major Edits (queue and/or when viewing a Q/A) and make one of the required approvals.
-
Editor - Allows a user to review Minor Edits or Major Edits and approve immediately without any additional approvals needed. Also allows editing of a Q/A without requiring approval from anyone else.
While the above 3 privileges will normally be assigned automatically based on “rep/etc.”, there should be a way for a Moderator to revoke (or to assign - which we will need in the early days because otherwise all Approvals would need to be done by Moderators) any of these privileges as needed. There could easily be situations where a relatively new user is assigned Minor (or even Major) Edit Approval but be found to not do a good job of it and need to be demoted, but without losing all other privileges. Similarly, an Editor privilege may need to be revoked if a user is too quick to make content changes inappropriately (or perhaps just not very well - e.g., the Major Edits need too many Minor Edits for spelling/etc.) that do not necessarily reflect on that user’s capability with respect to other earned privileges.
Moderators will automatically have Editor privilege. However, well established users should have this privilege as well.
Authors will always have Editor privileges for their own posts. In other words, they can immediately approve or reject any edits proposed by others.
Process
- Author creates Question or Answer
- Another user clicks Edit.
If Allow Major Edits == True then:
- Somewhere (not sure if top or bottom is best), a choice is shown of “Major Edit” vs. “Minor Edit”. Some limited information should be shown in mouseover, with additional information available via a ?/Help icon.
- Approval requirements based on the user’s status and the site rules should be displayed next to Minor and Major. Some examples
- Minor 2, Major 2:
- New/Low Rep User: Minor Edit (2 Approvals required), Major Edit (2 Approvals Required)
- Minor Edit Approval User: Minor Edit (1 Approval required), Major Edit (2 Approvals Required)
- Major Edit Approval User: Minor Edit (1 Approval required), Major Edit (1 Approval Required)
- Editor: Minor Edit, Major Edit (i.e., don’t say anything since no approvals needed)
- Minor 1, Major 2:
- New/Low Rep User: Minor Edit (1 Approval required), Major Edit (2 Approvals Required)
- Minor Edit Approval User: Minor Edit (No Approval required), Major Edit (2 Approvals Required)
- Major Edit Approval User: Minor Edit (No Approval required), Major Edit (1 Approval Required)
- Editor: Minor Edit, Major Edit (i.e., don’t say anything since no approvals needed)
If Allow Major Edits == False then:
-
Show “Minor Edit” in the usual selection location but already “checked” and with a note next to it like: The Author has restricted Major Edits to this Question [Answer]. If you have additional content or significant changes, you may add a comment to suggest the information to the Author or include the information in your own Answer.
-
Moderators, users with Editor privilege and of course the Author still have Minor vs. Major as above because the restriction does not apply to them.
-
Approval requirements based on the user’s status and the site rules should be displayed next to “Minor Edit”. Only Minor is relevant. Some examples
- Minor 2:
- New/Low Rep User: Minor Edit (2 Approvals required)
- Minor Edit Approval User: Minor Edit (1 Approval required)
- Editor: Minor Edit, Major Edit (i.e., don’t say anything since no approvals needed)
- Minor 1:
- New/Low Rep User: Minor Edit (1 Approval required)
- Minor Edit Approval User: Minor Edit (No Approval required)
- Editor: Minor Edit, Major Edit (i.e., don’t say anything since no approvals needed)
-
If Approvals are needed:
- Author is notified
- Author can approve or reject any changes to their own Q or A.
- Moderator or Editor can approve or reject any changes
-
Minor Edit Approval or Major Edit Approval users can approve or reject any [Minor or Major] changes. If additional approvals are needed then the edit stays “Pending” until sufficient Approvals (or rejects) are done.
-
After final Approval or Rejection:
- User who proposed the edit is notified (and gets “rep” as appropriate)
- Author is notified (unless Author did the Approval or Rejection)
-
If Approvals are not needed: