3 ms·

> If there are areas where contributions are discouraged Editing someone else's comment is vandalism, not contribution.

qubex 9y ago
I beg to differ: I did not vandalise another user’s comment. (But then again, I would say that, wouldn’t I, since I am arguing my case and I am inherently biased in my favour.) I will provide the facts so that you can assess the facts for yourself: I didn’t just change his spelling. I edited his spelling, but I left the previous state (in another section), explained what I had done and why, provided sources and citations as to why my transliteration was preferable, and took clear ownership of what I had done and why I had done it.
- scatters 9y ago
  What you did was not vandalism, but it was rude, since it violated the moral right of the other user to control the words associated with their authorship. When one contributes to the article space, one is explicitly relinquishing that right, because Wikipedia is a collective effort, but that does not hold for talk space content, particularly when it is signed. And what you did was doubly rude because you acknowledge that your version was "preferable"; that is, it is conceivable that the other user prefers their version. They may be wrong to do so, but by editing their words directly you are denying them their right to an opinion. It is not surprising at all that your edit was reverted.
  - qubex 9y ago
    Yes, I agree, in hindsight, that I was rude according to what I discovered (the hard way) be the prevailing norm. However I have difficulty agreeing with you on your second paragraph, indeed it is the exact opposite of what I deeply believe: I am convinced that there is an objective truth, and that one of the things where there is prevailing conviction as to what is correct spelling wand what is not. Words have meaning by virtue of convention, and if you do not pursue the convention, you are reneging on the certainty of being able to unambiguously and intelligibly commune with others.
    - lostmsu 9y ago
      Words change over time. One of the big reasons is being prone to misspelling.

I beg to differ: I did not vandalise another user’s comment. (But then again, I would say that, wouldn’t I, since I am arguing my case and I am inherently biased in my favour.) I will provide the facts so that you can assess the facts for yourself: I didn’t just change his spelling. I edited his spelling, but I left the previous state (in another section), explained what I had done and why, provided sources and citations as to why my transliteration was preferable, and took clear ownership of what I had done and why I had done it.

scatters 9y ago
What you did was not vandalism, but it was rude, since it violated the moral right of the other user to control the words associated with their authorship. When one contributes to the article space, one is explicitly relinquishing that right, because Wikipedia is a collective effort, but that does not hold for talk space content, particularly when it is signed. And what you did was doubly rude because you acknowledge that your version was "preferable"; that is, it is conceivable that the other user prefers their version. They may be wrong to do so, but by editing their words directly you are denying them their right to an opinion. It is not surprising at all that your edit was reverted.
- qubex 9y ago
  Yes, I agree, in hindsight, that I was rude according to what I discovered (the hard way) be the prevailing norm. However I have difficulty agreeing with you on your second paragraph, indeed it is the exact opposite of what I deeply believe: I am convinced that there is an objective truth, and that one of the things where there is prevailing conviction as to what is correct spelling wand what is not. Words have meaning by virtue of convention, and if you do not pursue the convention, you are reneging on the certainty of being able to unambiguously and intelligibly commune with others.
  - lostmsu 9y ago
    Words change over time. One of the big reasons is being prone to misspelling.