Allow the edit history to be visible

Hello,

I would like to propose that the edit history of an item and the edit comments are made visible to all users.

This is possible in Wikipedia and Wikidata and makes the contributions more transparent, giving information on when the piece was added and when the last edit was made.

More importantly, the visibility of the edit history and comments would allow for the information sources to become apparent. The sources of the edits should be specified in the comment section of the edit form, but once the edit is published, the sources disappear.

To give a relevant example:

N#275646

In the comments, it is specified that “All but 7 melted because…”. None of the two references mentions this (KM page 88 and Zöttl page 410). So how legitimate is this piece of information? Especially something like this that can have a significant influence on the price. The source of this piece of info should be in the edit comment, and making it visible should validate the information.

Thank you

The sources of the edits should be specified in the comment section of the edit form, but once the edit is published, the sources disappear.

This is no longer the case, the source comments are visible in the history.

stratocaster

I would like to propose that the edit history of an item and the edit comments are made visible to all users.

 

To all registered users. It make sense.

Hello,
I'm in favour of this idea. It would actually serve a similar purpose as the other idea “Possibility to add references”, but much easier to implement.

I don't see any issue with opening the history to all visitors (even if they are not registered users). Perhaps we may want to anonymize contributions for not registered visitors. Does anyone see any issue with making the edit history publicly visible?

Xavier

Does anyone see any issue with making the edit history publicly visible?

 Er, yes. What is the point in showing who did what to a page anyway? 

Really? I for one do NOT want anything I do to be visible to absolutely anyone - 

be they members or visitors. What is this site coming to? :( 

I agree with Zac. 

It is unnecessary, and would simply clutter up numista with pointless outdated information. Essentially spam.

The advantage of showing such information would be to reflect the date and the source of information added to Numista. If someone spots something weird in the catalogue, they may want to get more information about the context in which the information was added to the catalogue: Was it added long ago or recently? As part of the initial creation of the page or a specific edit of that piece of information? Was there any relevant source mentioned? It would definitely help to track down potential errors and fix them.

I understand the concern is about privacy protection. What if we make the edit history visible to everyone, but remove all names (contributors and referees) in the version publicly available?

We would keep the names visible only to the referee in charge (as currently available), so the referee still has a chance to contact the contributor in the (rare) case where it may be useful to ask the contributor for additional information.

Spam is still spam.

A dedicated section for References (which has been discussed elsewhere) would be a good addition, similar to the field for Comments.

What do you mean by “spam”? I don't think we have advertising content in the edit history…

 Since when can referees see that? I thought only team members can. 

Anyway - again - why would they or anyone need to see history? 

1. The referee notices something 

2. The member is contacted about what they did in the past

3. The member does something (or not) the referee requests 

4. The referee changes the page 

 Whereas … 

1. The referee notices something 

4. The referee changes the page 

as in why oh why are parts 2 and 3 needed? 

 I am getting more annoyed minute by minute. :( 

I hope we can still debate in a peaceful manner, and discuss together what needs to be changed or not.

Referees can see the edit history for the coins of their country at least since 2015. We can discuss whether this needs to be changed or adjusted in a separate topic.

Regarding the idea of making the history visible to everyone, I listened to your concern about names being visible and the risk to be uselessly contacted (your steps 3 and 4 above), that's why I suggested that the name of the members should not be visible. The only remaining parts which would be visible are the date of the edits, the content of the edits, and the mentioned source of the edits. I believe that showing the source would help all users of the catalogue (even not registered) who would question a piece of information in the catalogue.

This is a complement to the other idea “Possibility to add references”, especially as it will take time (if ever done) to add references for all the information already in the catalogue.

 OK 

Sometimes a change can be as mundane as the addition or removal of a full stop, capitalising a word, correcting a spelling error. This is what I mean by spam - irrelevant pointless data that is clutter.

I also agree totally with Zac on the privacy issues. 

Thank you for the clarification. Indeed not everything in the edit history is meaningful.

Personnally I look for edits history mainly to find sources, not really to know who submitted what.

Xavier

….

 The only remaining parts which would be visible are the date of the edits, the content of the edits, and the mentioned source of the edits. 

….

Hi

I would mind if personal comments would be visible (see “mentioned source of the edits”), that may be even beyond spam. If made public, this should be added as one of the links below. Date + contents should be enough.

LP