7

If the reputation system is the same as SO, then you need 3000 rep to edit other questions/answers. We don't have anyone near that yet, and looks like we won't by the time the beta goes public. Why not let people who are already trusted to edit on other stack exchange sites edit on sites during the beta?

It's not like editing necessarily needs specialist knowledge of the subject, to fix a typo for example, and if they are trusted on other sites then presumably that means that they won't just screw around. Once the beta is over, or there are x users with >3000 rep then maybe their ability to edit could be rescinded?

6

This is a hard question:

  • It makes me crazy when I see an obvious typo in the question header and can't fix it, especially when we're trying to put our best face on for the public beta's influx of new experts
  • That said, a simply lowering the threshold for editing on betas/public betas to an easily attainable number strikes me as dangerous. To paraphrase Grandma Parker/Sam Raimi, the ability to change someone else's words represents great power, and it oughtn't come without first demonstrating great responsibility (by earning a lot of rep)

While certain rights being based on your rep on other sites on an ongoing basis, as is suggested here seems like a nice compromise, implementation would be a mess- it's a lot more complex than the one-time award for association. Aside from any tech complexity:

  • It would make it close to impossible for others to follow who's allowed to do what where
  • More importantly, rep isn't just (hopefully) suggestive of responsible behavior. It (hopefully) represents expertise in the site's topic.

One problem with granting editing power to the coding expert on the cooking site is that despite being an infallibly accurate expert on C++, he may be changing others' answers to reflect the cooking knowledge he dutifully accumulated reading The Old Wives' Guide to Poisoning Guests. And there's not much more dangerous to an experts' community than a sense that the experts are at risk to be "corrected" by neophytes.

For now, I think polite suggestions in the comments specifically indicating the item that needs changing are the way to go.

  • I tend to agree with much of what you have said, but whilst I acknowledge the issue with coder changing cookery things surely this can be monitored. most fixes would be for spelling/grammar/typos not for other things. indeed the same argument could be applicable to SO. Just because I have 3000+ rep doesn't necessarily mean I know anything about ruby or python, but I'm happily allowed to edit those posts on SO. Maybe restricting to users with a Strunk & White badge on another site would be the way to go. Having the site unedited in its infancy seems a big price to pay. – Sam Holder Jul 14 '10 at 18:12
2

I understand your reasons, and am inclined to agree with you. However, I don't think this is a good idea. I think it's important to let each community decide who it's editors are. Knowledge and trust in one subject matter do not relate to other subjects.

  • I'm not against this once we are out of beta, but I feel that during the beta, we have no editors, which means either a lot of comments saying 'you spelled this wrong' or posts which have mistakes, both of which reduce the appeal of the site to new users. – Sam Holder Jul 15 '10 at 15:10
  • Well, perhaps we should have an expectation that commenters remove their comments that consist of trivial correction suggestions? – hobodave Jul 15 '10 at 15:17
1

Reputation thresholds are different for public and private betas. Please see the /faq on the respective sites for the values.

  • ok, but still @2000 we have no editors, and its unlikely that those questions that need editing are going to be done retrospectively once we get people who can. – Sam Holder Jul 14 '10 at 11:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .