I believe that the addition of an edit history would be a massive boon to the usefulness of Lemmy on the whole. A common problem with forums is the relatively low level of trust that users can have in another’s content. When one has the ability to edit their posts, and comments this invites the possibility of misleading the reader – for example, one can create a comment, then, after gaining likes, and comments, reword the comment to either destroy the usefulness of the thread on the whole, or mislead a future reader. The addition of an edit history would solve this issue.

Lemmy already tracks that a post was edited (I point your attention to the little pencil icon that you see in a posts header in the browser version of the lemmy-ui). What I am describing is the expansion of this feature. The format that I have envisioned is something very similar to what Element does. For example:

What this image is depicting is a visual of what parts of the post were changed at the time that it was edited, and a complete history of every edit made to the post – sort of like a “git diff”.

I would love to hear the feedback of all Lemmings on this idea for a feature – concerns, suggestions, praise, criticisms, or anything else!


This post is the result of the current (2023-10-03T07:37Z) status of this GitHub post. It was closed by a maintainer/dev of the Lemmy repo. I personally don’t think that the issue got enough attention, or input, so I am posting it here in an attempt to open it up to a potentially wider audience.

    • Kalcifer@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wikipedia is aggressively compressed (since you can merge multiple article revisions together and build a decent dictionary to drop the size dramatically).

      The example that I provided is uncompressed. Here is a notable excerpt from Wikipedia:

      As of May 2015, the current version of the English Wikipedia article / template / redirect text was about 51 GB uncompressed in XML format.

      Since I am only talking about the article content, and not any of the extra structure, or linking data, then it should be straightforward to imagine that it is only ~20GB in size.

      Being able to go back and fix my comment or add to it, change hyperlinks, etc, is great. Knowing conversations might get derailed to fixate on why I changed something etc is not great.

      As was pointed out by @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works, this may be self-limiting issue, since this sort of behavior would be quickly condemned by the court of public opinion.

      It’s not just about editing out passwords or hiding what is already out there in the federation. Public internet, no taksies-backsies is beyond the point.

      However, that seems to be the common counterargument in this comment section.

      It’s about facilitating good communication.

      Correct, but this is a subjective argument. I am of the opinion that it would improve communication by improving the quality of the post (removing things like "EDIT Grammar", etc.), and improving one's trustworthiness in the post's content.

      I’d imagine the nitpicking and derailing will be more prevalent that any other use of the feature.

      This is conjecture.

      Why do you need to “verify” what a user changed?

      This was already outlined in my post. People can change their post's content through an edit to mislead the reader.

      Chilling impact / chilling effect is just a technical term for things that inhibit or discourage behaviours.

      Oh, my mistake! Was this the idea that you were intending to convey?

      It can take only one or two negative interactions to shut a user up and revert them to lurking. Lemmy needs people talking.

      I would honestly argue that the lemmings, themselves, accomplish this already to a far greater degree 😉 – although that could be due to the influx of redditors, I'm not sure.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Since you tagged me, I figured I'd drop a note here. I agree with pretty much everything you posted here, I just wanted to add my input to one point.

        Lemmy needs people talking

        I disagree on this. I lurked for years on Reddit because I was enjoying reading the discussion, which was generally high quality. I only started posting when I felt I had something to add to the conversation. I've seen tons of cases where Redditors said something like "this is my first post, but I've been lurking for years; I just wanted to add…"

        If we prioritize discussion above all else, we'll get more discussion, but the average quality will go down. A lot of low quality discussion isn't going to attract the type of users that made Reddit great, and I think we want to attract those users because we need some reason for people to prefer lemmy to other options.

        I have bailed on several communities just because of the quality of discussion, here, on Reddit, and on various forums. I'm not going to put in the effort if it's not going to be reciprocated, and I imagine a lot of others feel similarly.

        If comment and post edit history is what we need to encourage higher quality discussion, I'm completely in favor. We can enforce anti-harassment rules through moderation, but we can't enforce any kind of post quality and expect it to work, so we should be looking to create a culture of higher effort posts, at least in select communities.

        I think better moderation tools is more important than comment and post edit history, but I believe both are important.

        • Kalcifer@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If we prioritize discussion above all else, we’ll get more discussion, but the average quality will go down

          Not necessarily. One must look at the underlying reason(s) for why people aren't contributing to discussions. If it is indeed that they have nothing of quality to input, and are then incentivized to do so, then, yes, that will cause a reduction in discussion quality. But what if, instead, users capable of producing high quality content aren't contributing because they don't feel that their opinion is welcome in the discussion – that they are afraid of being harassed, or ostracized? If these users begin to contribute more, then the quality would theoretically increase. Of course, it wouldn't necessarily be that simple in practice, but I would assume that it would have a different effect than the former example.

          A lot of low quality discussion isn’t going to attract the type of users that made Reddit great

          I am hesitant to agree that Reddit was consistently producing only high quality content 😜 I would argue that the more likely explanation is that there was a flat increase in volume of content being posted, and the people sorting by new had statistically more good content to choose from. Unless, of course, this is what you are referring to.

          I think better moderation tools is more important than comment and post edit history

          I strongly agree. Not because I personally have any use for better moderation tools, but that appears to be a major, and most likely primary complaint that many people have when they come to Lemmy from other platforms like Reddit.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Everyone is looking for something different, so we'll all have a different idea of what "quality content" looks like. I'll try to expound on mine with some examples.

            When I first used Reddit, /r/news and /r/politics had a pretty diverse set of users, with pretty frequent sources to back up claims. As they got more popular, the prevailing leftist userbase essentially took over the subreddit and their posts got upvoted far more than other view points, and upvotes were more readily awarded to popular opinions than arguments with clear citations. A few years ago, I bailed on both and joined /r/neutral_politics and /r/neutral_news, which are strictly moderated subs where comments are required to source any facts. My experience there was way better and divergent views were more visible because the lower effort nonsense without any evidence was moderated out. Not only was there less low quality content, but there was also more high quality content because users were rewarded for higher effort contributions with discussion.

            I've had a similar experience on other subreddits as well. I'm willing to put in the effort to have a higher engagement discussion, but I'm not going to do that if others don't want that discussion.

            I think tools like publicly visible edit history help keep people honest in discussions like that. It helps on Wikipedia to catch vandalism, and I'd like to try the same for something like Reddit.

            However, this type of feature makes no sense on meme communities and other areas where lower effort contributions are expected and welcomed.