 | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
>
>
> > I can't wait to see the firestorm if/when LUGNET staff start editing posts
> > without permission :)
>
> if/when?
>
> Does Lugnet not view editing the FUT editing? This is widley done by the Admins.
>
> I thought if you changed anything about a post than you were editing it. Am I
> wrong in this assumption?
>
> M
I would actually like an aswer to this. I would like to know what is and what is
not considered 'editing' by the Lugnet Admin team.
M
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I can't wait to see the firestorm if/when LUGNET staff start editing posts
> > > without permission :)
> >
> > if/when?
> >
> > Does Lugnet not view editing the FUT editing? This is widley done by the Admins.
> >
> > I thought if you changed anything about a post than you were editing it. Am I
> > wrong in this assumption?
>
> I would actually like an aswer to this. I would like to know what is and what is
> not considered 'editing' by the Lugnet Admin team.
Well I dunno about any other editing, but I don't consider changing the FUT as
editing, as it is only a suggestion anyway. All they are changing is where
they'd like followups to go - you are still free to override that. And NNTP
admins have had that ability since the dawn of time. Well OK maybe the dawn of
NNTP time.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> > Does Lugnet not view editing the FUT editing? This is widley done by
> > the Admins.
> >
> > I thought if you changed anything about a post than you were editing
> > it. Am I wrong in this assumption?
>
> I would actually like an aswer to this. I would like to know what is
> and what is not considered 'editing' by the Lugnet Admin team.
This hasn't been discussed on the list, and I'm sure there are probably
a variety of opinions, but I'll offer mine.
Overriding the FUT of an article alters the article's metadata item known
as the "Followup-To" header. While this is not part of the article's
content per se, it is part of the object that comprises the article as a
whole. When the FUT is overridden, the value of the original "Followup-To"
header is copied to a new "Original-Followup-To" header so that this
information is not lost. In my view, this is not editing an article's
content in a fundamental way. Strictly speaking, yes, it is editing an
article's content, since the file in which the article is stored on the
server is altered during this process.
What I would call "editing" is going in and changing, adding, or deleting
words in the the body or subject of an article, or in various other human-
language header fields such as "Organization." No admin is authorized to
make any such editing changes to articles, and there is no admin interface
for doing it, nor plans to create one.
Let me know if that didn't answer your question.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman wrote:
> Let me know if that didn't answer your question.
Yes, it did.
Thank you for taking the time.
M
| | | | | | |
