people need to use edit summaries more, imo

[kaini]

see thread title.

[koolaidman]

I'll do an edit summary if I'm editing an article and completely removing something, or I'll write "grammar" if I'm adding an apostrafe somone left out but for something minor in a talkpage where I'm adding a comment I usually just leave it blank and have the section heading(==section==) be the summary.

IMO people also need to start using the minor edit button more often as well.

[XSG]

My problem is that I don't always remember to provide a summary, and I'm sure that I'm not alone in this. It's my philosophy that technology should be designed in order to accomodate human nature, not modify it. If having a user summary is desirable, the GUI should be constructed in such a way as to remind users that they should provide one. For example, it would be relatively trivial to require summaries for edits by altering the way the form is submitted, using an alert if a summary hasn't been entered. DHTML could also be used to automatically set the focus to the summary field in the event that the submit button is clicked with no summary present.

But that's not quite what I would do. I'd also add a checkbox beneath the summary field, labelled "Do not include a summary", and my form-validation code would check for either the existence of a summary or a check in the checkbox. I'd implement this only in specified namespaces so that people werent annoyed with requiring a summary on Talk: and User: (and User talk pages...

See... GUI design (and technology) should accommodate humans, not hinder them.

XSG

[Santa]

um... but that all that verbiage doesn't help us.

summaries help rc patrolling, and looking at article histories... that's what I think kaini is getting at.

[GodEmperorOfHell]

well, I use the history tab to patrol edits, but XSG is right, the interface should accommodate the user. However the current interface of wikis is simple enough, I believe. I personally use the summary to add a remark about what I did, because I feel that is passing the buck. and that's what this is all aboot.

[XSG]

I agree with the tenet that summaries are valuable. If making summaries mandatory was put to a vote, I'd vote "yes". I believe that people not submitting summaries is for the most part behavioral, and that technology should make a change in user behavior as easy and convenient as possible.

What I'm suggesting is that we alter the underlying WikiCode in order to enable the MediaWiki GUI to "enforce" our desires (with respect to summaries).

To sum up the suggested changes:

1. Alter the action of the "Save Page" button to trigger a Javascript validation function, but only in the "Main" tablespace.
2. Add a checkbox to the GUI labelled "No summary".
3. Add a "<noscript>" line which will allow form submission to occur if Javascript is disabled or not present.
4. Add a Javascript validation function which checks to see that there is either content in the "No summary" checkbox or in the "Summary" field. If there is, submit the page. If there isn't, present an "Alert" message and change the focus to the "Summary" field, but do not submit the form.

Being familiar with WikiCode, I estimate that it would take me no more than an hour to create these modifications. I'm voluneering my time to write the programming required.

There is a challenge that presents itself with custom code, however, and that is that custom code may be reverted whenever the base code is upgraded. I'm not familiar with a WikiMedia patch method which would allow permanence of this sort of a change. I still think taking the three minutes to re-implement this code whenever MediaWiki is upgraded would be worthwhile.


So you see, Santa, I try to find solutions when a challenge presents itself. My verbiage is designed to hopefully provoke thought, which may help with the situation.

XSG

[Peephole]

Enforcing it would be really bad and it would just be a waste of time.