= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on How I Ended Up Non-Ambitious - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (237)
There is certainly a loss of potential when blog posts are left static rather than potentially being refined and improved by both the original author and the community. It seems to be something of a local minimum that we may not be easily able to improve upon given the basic format.
I endorse the improvement of old posts. But one should add a note with a date to it, declaring that it has been edited, to account for comments that were made prior to the editing that might refer to a problem with the initial version.
I also endorse the improvement of comments. But in the case of comments the editing should either be more limited, to not confuse people reading the follow-up comments, or mention the gist of the initial comment as a side note.
I strongly oppose having someone else edit signed material without consent.
I'm ok with an edit link which could include notes or a wiki link, or a clearly marked area which mentions edited versions (including a mention of how much was edited and by whom) and gives the edited versions' karma.