"Grace period" for initial post

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Often, I'll post a small part of a page, not listing it as stub, because I want a placeholder while I check links, directs, etc., before I add additional text. In one minor example, I had drafted some material in a word processor, and put up the first few paragraphs before I saw a few redlinks to fix either in the new text or in creating those articles before finishing the one I had just started.

Last night, I started an article, and then discovered that I was missing a particular government graphic, and would need to make some phone calls to find it.

Might I suggest that authors get a reasonable grace period -- 24 hours or so -- before changing the material beyond obvious typos or unreadable graphics?  Remembering that there are global contributors who may be in a very different time zone, such things might first be posted to the talk page and give the originator a reasonable chance to respond. In the case of the graphic last night, someone immediately asked, properly on the talk page, to resize it, and another contributor suggested being bold and doing so.  Unfortunately, that resizing was done with an image map that I don't understand, and really would rather not research until I get the other basic graphics onto the page. There was also a matter that I realized the graphic's file name was not ideal, after a good night's sleep, but it appears that changing the name would disturb the image map.

In like manner, it's not only article content that may be in progress, but at least part of the article structure. I've been being much more careful to put in placeholder headings when I first put up an article, so that things aren't immediately added.

There's no question that I'm guilty of some of these things myself, but, unless it's a clear error or a matter of readability, I try to restrain my enthusiasm until I see if I get a talk page response.

Thanks!

[Hayford Peirce]

With the paucity of authors and editors in most fields at the moment, I doubt if there's really a serious possibility of somebody's initial draft being disappeared because it hasn't been worked on in 24 hours. Geez, there have been cases here in which an initial article has dangled for a year before even being noticed! Don't worry about it!

[Denis Cavanagh]

Geez, there have been cases here in which an initial article has dangled for a year before even being noticed! Don't worry about it!

LOL, I can certainly vouch for that, I've made so many stubs in the last year or so I forgot most of them and come across them occassionaly in their pure, untampered form! I don't think we need to worry about this just yet!

[Aleta Curry]

Sounds like what Howard is saying it's that it's *already* happened, so it's not a case of don't worry about it.

Howard, I think what you're experiencing is a hazard of the wiki environmnet.  You're frustrated if things are changed not in keeping with your original plans, because the changes may be such that it's a lot of work to fix/merge/restructure incorporating your original ideas/completely rewrite etc., is that it?

Such things are irritating, I agree, and I'm sure I've been on both the giving and receiving end.

However, I have also seen cases where someone has specifically asked people *not* to change things but give the author time, comment on the talk page, s/he'd be back the next day to work on it, etc. etc. and then it's sat there for weeks--in some cases months, as Hayford says, and in at least one case I can name off the bat, the original author was never seen here again. 

Soooo...what I'm saying is that though grace periods sound good in theory, in practise, people forget.  The original author gets busy with something else, and the contributing author forgets what she wanted to say and she doesn't come back either, and the result is that sub-stub just sits there.

You've reminded me of something:  at that other wiki they used to have these...well, 'time out' templates.  They said, roughly, 'I'm doing a major edit on this, so in order to avoid the old edit conflict, please don't edit for (no. of mins/hours).  Thanks ~~~~'  I used to love that.  Used it whenever I was doing something major, because nothing got my goat as much as an edit conflict.  Okay, that's a lie, lots of other things get my goat, but....

I wouldn't mind seeing something like 'Howard Berkowitz is in the middle of writing this article.  He'll be back to finish on June 1st.  If you wish to make a major edit, please do so in draft space.  Feel free to edit this article as normal beginning on June 2nd."

We'd have to make a deadline, of course, or people will be tying up articles for weeks or months.

Larry's probably cringing at this point!

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Much agreement, Aleta. I know the templates you mean, and I'm not sure they were worth the effort, at least in the particular environment of The Other Place. It is possible that with the somewhat lower level of chaos here, they might be respected here when even Administrators would ignore the template, and, literally minutes after the first few paragraphs were posted and saved, might decide to go for speedy deletion based on not liking the initial words, mostly saved to be sure they weren't lost.

If there were a template, and the technical infrastructure would support it, I'd suggest that they have an automatic timer -- perhaps with the timer updated by content added within a certain time -- and possibly lock the article.

In my mind, there is a difference between getting fast collaboration in a Wiki, and getting non-collaborative fast action without consultation.  Some of my experiences with Wikis is as a very effective means of writing technical documentation, and also specifically asking for help, in a software development company. We didn't actually lock the text -- and previously we used UNIX/LINUX source code control systems that did -- but we were pretty good at saying "OK, here's a piece that is sufficiently complete to be torn apart, as a worthy meal for a lion (yes, I know lions are sexist as to who does the work), rather than scraps for the scavengers."**

Believe me, I'm not talking about privileged access for days. I'm usually thinking under 24 hours only for the initial post, and perhaps a shorter time for subsequent updates.


**As a Thought for the Day, it is said vultures make the most efficient air travelers, as they exclusively use carrion baggage.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

With the paucity of authors and editors in most fields at the moment, I doubt if there's really a serious possibility of somebody's initial draft being disappeared because it hasn't been worked on in 24 hours. Geez, there have been cases here in which an initial article has dangled for a year before even being noticed! Don't worry about it!

I'm afraid it's already happened to me several times, at varying levels of impact.

[Hayford Peirce]

I'm afraid it's already happened to me several times, at varying levels of impact.

Is the same person doing it? Maybe following your tracks on purpose, hoping to do just this, for whatever reason?

Nothing I've ever written (and then forgotten about) has *ever* been touched.  And I joined back on May 27, ought seven, I think.  Hey, that was my birthday a couple of days ago!

[Aleta Curry]

Ha!  'Carrion baggage'!  You've got the whole family laughing over here, Howard!  Isn't it amazing, we live in a day and age where you can tell a joke and have people chuckling on the other side of the earth?

Hayford--so you're estoric, whadya want from me?  And Happy Birthday, you old geezer!

[Denis Cavanagh]

I'm afraid it's already happened to me several times, at varying levels of impact.

Is the same person doing it? Maybe following your tracks on purpose, hoping to do just this, for whatever reason?

Nothing I've ever written (and then forgotten about) has *ever* been touched.  And I joined back on May 27, ought seven, I think.  Hey, that was my birthday a couple of days ago!

Happy birthday! (Belated obviously  )

[Hayford Peirce]

My bad! I have to use a spreadsheet to keep track of the birthdays of my four stepchildren and their eleven children, all of whom are native French-speakers. The French, who pride themselves on the clarity of their language, nevertheless falter in a couple of departments, one of which is the use of the same word, anniversaire for both birthday and anniversary, fie on them! Anyway, that usage leads to massive confusion in my own tired old brain, especially since I seldom bother to commemorate, or even remember, my own birthday. So when I wrote above that the 27th had been my birthday, I meant to say that it was the 1st anniversary of my having joined the Fine Folks at CZ.

You can blow out the birthday candles on my cake next January 7th, though!

But thanks for the good wishes in any case!

Hayford

[Milton Beychok]

Howard Berkowitz:

The simplest and best way to avoid having other editors revise articles that you are still working on is to create your own personal sandbox and work on your articles in that sandbox until you are satisfied with them. Then create the new article and cut/paste from your sandbox to the new article. I do that with all the new articles that I create.

Milt Beychok

[Aleta Curry]

Good one, Milton.  I was going to suggest saving in 'My CZ folder' on your computer, but your way saves it from possible computer crashes!

[RJensen]

I agree with Aleta and Milt. It certainly is a pain when others erase your text because they plan to some day write something they expect will be better. It violates the spirit of collaboration that makes CZ work.

[John Stephenson]

It certainly is a pain when others erase your text because they plan to some day write something they expect will be better. It violates the spirit of collaboration that makes CZ work.

Agreed...