Community administration - edit entry

[snoossecret]

Title:
Community administration - edit entry

Area:
editing entries

Summary:
I'd like the people I choose as administrators to be able to actually edit the enteries rather then just comment on them.

Description:
Hi, I'm currently using a community for a writing project with a couple other people. I'd like the people I choose as administrators to be able to actually edit my enteries and for them to be able to edit my entries.... that way we can correct spelling mistakes and add bits to each entry if we need to. I'm not sure if this is possible (or would be widely used) - but in my particular case it would sure help.

Poll #4434 Community administration - edit entry

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 61

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
14 (23.0%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
20 (32.8%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
21 (34.4%)

(I have no opinion)
4 (6.6%)

(Other: please comment)
2 (3.3%)

Comments

[zaluzianskya]

On the one hand I like the idea of community maintainers being able to edit entries to change certain things -- adding cuts, changing security or age restriction, etc -- but I personally would draw the line at changing the actual content.

[ninetydegrees]

+1

[matgb]

It should be a possibity that's clearly labelled as such on joining a comm though. The difference between a DW comm and a group blog on wordpress or blogger is that I can open up posting access a lot more on DW, it's a lot more flexible.

Hence, I want to be able to setup "group blogs" on here, instead of self hosting a wordpress, which I currently have to do for a few campaigns.

But one of the things that prevents that is the ability to go in and edit for typos, or even defamatory content (I do politics blogs, mostly, that's important).

I wouldn't want this option on every comm I'm a member of, but would need it if I'm going to use the site to host my proper campaigning sites. Which is one of the things I ultimately want from the DW platform.

So my 'with changes' is that it's an option within community management that's clearly labelled.

[susanreads]

+1

[senmut]

I don't like seeing titles blank, would love to set age appropriateness, etc...but content is theirs.

[ninetydegrees]

would love to set age appropriateness

You can do that actually. :)

[fizzyblogic]

This is my 'with changes'.

[ariestess]

This. Definitely this.

[cesy]

I think this could be useful for certain communities, but shouldn't be the default. Ideally, I think it should be a property of the entry, so the poster has to set it, or the community can make it the default, but an entry can't become admin-editable without the original poster either deliberately ticking the box, or seeing that the box is ticked by default for that comm when they first post. That way someone can't retrospectively apply it to your posts without warning you, but it would be user-friendly for a group blog who want it on all their posts.

[matgb]

This is a very good way to implement, yes, I like.

An admin option within the comm to set so that admins can edit, and a post option when posting to a comm that shows who can edit, that can be defaulted to or set to what the admin prefers (there's a few instances I can think of where I'd insist on the ability to edit, others where it'd be useful).

I'm actually thinking of the idea of suggesting a special sub type of comm on setup called 'group blog' that defaults to this sort of thing (And also stops post deletion once approved and a few other things), and then allowing normal comms to be more community/respect based in their default, while allowing individual settings to change.

That way I'm happy for the things I'd like to host here (we ruled out DW for Jennie's campaign site for a few reasons, this was low on the list but there, domain mapping'd be top priority, combined with better OpenID UX for commenting), but those that're migrating from LJ and want MOAR control get it as well.

I'm very wary of the site becoming "the LJ clone for people that don't like LJ management", we need to be outward looking, for features on other sites that're considered normal these days.

[kyrielle]

+1.

[eruthros]

+1

[skieswideopen]

I'd love to be able to set certain posts to be editable by any admin without making it automatic or universal. I don't need to edit posts by community members in the communities I mod, but it would be nice to be able to set up admin posts (affiliate lists, FAQs, etc.) that could be edited by any admin. (Yes, we could set up an admin journal and all share it, but it's a pain to be constantly logging in and out.)

[cheyinka]

I would be okay with it if it worked like that.

[zeborah]

This, yes.

[goodbyebird]

+1
This would be especially handy for a comm that manages FAQ, sign-ups, links lists, members/team lists, etc.

[twisted_times]

I think this could be useful for certain communities, but shouldn't be the default.

This!

[zvi]

This sounds like a problem whose solution is, actually, google docs. (or zoho docs, or group editing using the abiword client, etc.)

One of the things I really like about DW is that (unless your account is hacked or shared), it's very clear who said what. I find it really frustrating when I go to other sites and see that the host has edited someone's comments or edited someone else's entry.

If we implemented this, I would want the original poster to be required to approve changes before they're displayed to the site, and I would want a note on the entry itself that indicated it was edited by account example (similar to how comment edits are displayed, would work work for me, although, by default, at the top of the entry rather than the bottom.)

[matgb]

Actually, I really like that idea, showing it was edited by another person would be a good, and honest, way of doing it. The biggest issue andrewhickey.info had with a site that we both contributed to regularly was that sometimes the edits summarised to such an extent it made his meaning unclear.

But, I'd not want it at the top for display: the top paragraph is the intro para that draws people in, I dislike it when it's technical stuff, about the author, etc. I think, but am not going to go dig, that usability studies show a nice intro paragraph that summarises the article is the best way to draw readers in, and I'd not want an auto generated system that breaks that.

(and, of course, I like the idea of showing 'edited by X at Y time in the footer because, y'know, my idea for comments in the first place ;-)

[thejeopardymaze]

Personally I don't like the idea of it, because I can see it being abused and used to misrepresent people. I'd rather see posts deleted than run the risk of misrepresentation, and possible defamation by an administrator.

If there are spelling and grammar problems on the OP's behalf, why not just politely point them out?

[matgb]

why not just politely point them out

Time constraint professionally edited blogs, or campaign sites, or similar, need to be able to take submissions, tidy them up, and then publish them.

You're looking at in entirely from a "this is how DW comms work now perspective" and, to an extent, a "this is what I want from my DW comms" perspective.

I'm looking at it as a potential for what Comms, overall, can be used for. And that's a lot wider scope that we currently have. But admin/editor control over stuff would be a feature needed.

Especially if it's something trivial like correcting a typo.

[kerravonsen]

If there are spelling and grammar problems on the OP's behalf, why not just politely point them out?
I've been in the situation where I've been running a ficathon, just posted the master post (a post that needs to be updated as people comment with their fic links) and then my computer died and I couldn't connect to the internet. I would have been much happier if I'd been able to ring up a co-mod and say "hey, can you take over the master post, I can't do it." As it was, I had to ring up the co-mod to make a new master-post, and that was very confusing for the participants.

I can imagine that similar situations could arise, with time constraints, illness, emergencies, equipment failure, such that the original poster can't get to the post to edit it, and it urgently needs to be edited. In that kind of situation, it is helpful for someone else to be able to edit the post. I completely understand people's concern for the potential for abuse of such a facility, so I think it needs to be tightly controlled, but I do think is useful in a limited set of circumstances.

[charmian]

If this is implemented, there should be a way that the fact that the maintainer can edit posts should be made known to the posters.

[kerravonsen]

My "with changes"; a combo of some of the ideas already suggested.

1. To turn on admin-editing, it must be enabled both in the Community settings, and in the entry by the original poster.
2. An icon near the top of the entry to indicate that it has been edited.
3. At the bottom of the entry, show who did the edit, and a "reason for changes" (similar to the "reason for changes" in comment edits)
4. The reason should not be allowed to be blank.
5. Only the original poster can turn on the ability to edit an entry; admins should not be allowed to.
6. The original poster should be notified if the entry is edited.

[goodbyebird]

+1, except
5. Only the original poster can turn on the ability to edit an entry; admins should not be allowed to.

A community should be able to set this as a default(clearly marked for the poster), though the poster can choose to untick the box, in which case the post will then go into a moderation queue(if those are the settings the moderators use).