I think there should be a time limit after which one shldnt be able to delete...
-
Peace,
I think the key issue is the prevention of abuse of the system.
So people who do things like delete things without justification, explanation, for deception or malicious reasons should be banned therefore eliminating the problem.
What would be really useful in these cases is a 1 day cache of posts that are deleted such that if such problem behaviour was detected then the person could be banned and the deleted posts restored to protect thread integrity.
Why I am speaking out about this is really for the same reason that personal liberties are being eroded around us for problems that are in themselves minor. For example all the anti ter ror laws that rob people of their liberties and impinge on their privacy are at best stopping a small number of potential deaths for great outlays of money and erosion of rights. Compare it to the real problem of deaths per year from motor vehicle related incidents.... but no one wants to ban motor cars.
I think in this case that the problem is not the editing of posts per se, but problematic deleting behaviour (later additions or tampering are obvious from timestamps and if people use the 'quote' option then the original post is maintained) and what needs to be done is that such users must be detected and banned rather than punishing legitimate users.
Regards.
-
Peace Oben,
This point has been brought forward by us before we knew about the time edit. Wouldn't it be preferable for people not to get banned (over most times minor offences) if there was a method to prevent them from doing stuff that would get them banned? Prevention is better than curing the disease and as you mentioned, prevention of abuse of the system. This can be done by putting in a time limit instead of banning.
There are some posters that have a lot to contribute, but get embarrassed if they think they've posted something stupid, or 'lost' in a debate. Most times, these are nothing but unfounded fears taking over. If we ban such users for doing something that could've been prevented, I think it would be worse than a time edit on posts. It would raise the bar on interactions as well, quality as opposed to quantity as people would be thinking about what they are posting. At least in theory.
I understand your point about loss of personal liberties eroding all around us, but as far as this time edit thing goes, let's see how it works out. If it still causes dissatisfaction, we can go with other options as well, like increasing time or as a last resort, an addition to the rules.
-
Peace..
I think I'd have to think twice now whether to Post the Topic or Not.
Moderators please keep a Track on the Number of Posts.
I'm sure on the longer Run it will reduce the rate of Growth of Posts..
May be the Quality of the Posts will increase...Think twice before implementing such a Decision.
Or Make it in such a way that an edit is possible pending to the approval of the moderator..Allah Bless all
-
I think a lot of other forums handle this a lot better than it's handled here. All you need to do to discourage editing is show when a post has been edited, and in the case of deleting, put in "post deleted". If you particularly like someone's post and are afraid of them deleting it, you can save in onto your computer, if they don't like their idea, you can take it as your own. Trading freedom for security is bad enough, so how much worse is taking away a freedom for convenience?
http//www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/20/comment.digitalmedia
-
I think it can also work in a positive way. For example, if users know they will be unable to delete or edit their own posts after a short time, it should promote more consideration before posting.
In certain circumstances, posts can still be edited or deleted, if there is a genuine reason, by contacting admin/mods.
Having a system where users can delete and/or modify what they like, whenever they like, in a way that does not tell others what was changed, opens up potential problems and is more chaotic, especially when trying to have structured discussions.
-
That's just frightening people into staying silent, discouraging people from saying what they think just in case. And this kind of thing definitely can work against people. Just this last year there was a leadership contest for the Liberal Democrat Party in Britain. Two candidates, Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg. Someone dug up an ancient article Chris Huhne had co-authored in a university magazine, 35 years earlier, talking positively about LSD in a way which was trendy back then. The world has changed a lot in the past 35 years, and Chris Huhne couldn't even remember writing it, he made clear it didn't represent his current opinions. But it was grabbed upon by the media and he lost the vote by a tiny margin.
Young people today are in a hugely more vulnerable position with every passing opinion they've ever held being stored somewhere. To exacerbate this by preventing us deleting our own mistakes is multiplying stupidity by itself.
-
I cant recall any member saying they feel frightened into staying silent. In any case, AQ has no problem citing "mistakes" by prophets/messengers, albeit minor. People often learn from their mistakes, and people can learn from the mistakes of others too.
To err is human.
-
I definately think that one should have the right to delete all posts one has made, and user. And why not make that apply to all media aswell. Current lawsystems should improve here. If you write some "trash-litterature" as a joke or in an unserious mood, as teenager for instance. How many doesn't grow up, to want to have that removed, and then find that the company that holds the rights to your work, still sells it and makes money on it. When people grow wise, that should be reflected in society aswell.
-
Peace,
why not make that apply to all media as well.
Because it's simply impossible. How does one delete all comments made in, let's say, a newspaper article from 5 years ago?
When people grow wise, that should be reflected in society as well
Yes, and when there's a written testimony of that growth, it's even more evident - and useful.
This is a largely anonymous forum. Very few have revealed their true identities. So, political aspirations can be kept by those who have them. For the rest, why fear what others think of your opinions when no one even knows who you are? Just say what's on your mind, review your thoughts, and then hit the "post" button.
If you feel like you're misunderstood, articulate your point. If you feel you spoke in error, correct yourself - just like a real live discussion.
Peace,
Tay -
In the case of online newspapers, you can get things taken of the online content section. In the example I gave about Chris Huhne and his LSD comments - those were made using a fake name. But the thing about political journalists is that they are expert researchers, they knew the right people to ask in his university, they knew how to track down his circle of 'friends' and bribe information from them.
Of course, I don't have any political aspirations. However, in the world of online chat, lots of people use their same username for lots of different forums, in one or two of which lots of us give away our identity, if you're with people you know. Combined with your IP address being stored, it is far from impossible for an experienced journalist to track down a persons different online identities, without even breaking the law, which they are far from averse to.
If we take a lesser example that will apply to far more of us, there are lots of things we are comfortable saying anonymously, but wouldn't want to say directly to our friends, or some other group of people we hang around with. So we say some things on here, in the belief it will stay anonymous. Then we come across an interesting post and think - "Hey, that's really interesting, I'd like to show my friend Adam that" - but we don't want Adam to see one or two of the posts we have made. So we don't show Adam the forum, and the forum misses out on a new member, because we can't delete one or two silly posts.
So you don't need to be a famous politician to want to keep some of your thoughts private. And what if we do have a budding politician among the Quran aloners here? Would we want to disadvantage them by preventing them deleting controversial opinions they have posted? That would be preventing people who share our beliefs coming to power and making the world a happier, more peaceful place, just because we're too obstinate and bloody headed to allow the flow of a couple of ancient threads be partially disrupted.
-
Who can you really talk to about anything? & peace
-
Peace Mahmud, all,
Would we want to disadvantage them by preventing them deleting controversial opinions they have posted?...there are lots of things we are comfortable saying anonymously, but wouldn't want to say directly to our friends, or some other group of people we hang around with
This is a forum for the study of the qur'an, not a place to vent closet opinions that you're ashamed of. Part of the system of islam is being truthful, standing by your word, and taking responsibility for your actions/thoughts/opinions. If that's not in the cards for you, I'd suggest finding another place that caters to confessional-style posting. I mean no disrespect or offense, but let's please keep things in their proper perspective.
Peace,
Tay -
That can work both ways Tay. People are wrong if they post maliciously, but then people are also wrong if they prevent others correcting themselves. The desire to hurt someone by preventing them correcting their mistakes is also haram, it is malicious in itself and has no place on a forum for the study of the Quran.
Of course, this forum has lots of catagories, far more than just studying the Quran.
-
Peace Mahmud, Someone,
desire to hurt someone by preventing...
This has become a play on semantics. No one is out to hurt anyone - thus your calling it haram is unfounded. In fact, I would even go as far as calling it slightly deceitful if one's intention was to erase his/her post simply because he/she feels the need to correct something. In real life, there is no deleting of history. I'm not sure why you think this should be any different.
If you make a mistake, you face up to it and correct it. Simple.
You can always correct earlier post by re-posting your new views or corrections to some understandings and actions in the related thread. As you know, no one is perfect but the god.
Thank you.
Peace,
Tay -
In ordinary conversation people let mistakes go. On internet forums they can be quoted and re-quoted. The two are really quite different.
Do you also object to pencils having erasers?
From the New Scientist
http//www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19726431.600
"A system that records every detail willy-nilly and makes that information accessible on an ongoing basis is one that will result in mass confusion," according to Dan Schacter of Harvard University. He says we forget because the brain has developed strategies to weed out irrelevant or out-of-date information. Efficient forgetting is a crucial part of having a fully functioning memory. When we forget something useful, he says, it just shows that this pruning system is working a little too well.
-
Peace Mahmud,
In ordinary conversation people let mistakes go.
And some do not - same as you would find in a forum, since it is people we're dealing with here.
On internet forums they can be quoted and re-quoted.
In real life, people use memory instead of quotes and re-quotes.
The two are really quite different.
I disagree.
Do you also object to pencils having erasers?
Nice strawman. Written words, in pencil, in privacy, being erased, are not equal to typed words, in public which people have already responded to, being deleted. I'm not really sure why I'm explaining this since you seem bright enough to know the difference.
Nevertheless, here is the forum rule, among others, if you haven't seen it
There is a time limit for edits on posts which is currently (120 minutes). After this, one cannot edit their posts or delete them. If there are any valid/important reasons for wanting something deleted or edited after the time limit expires, please contact the mods/admin. They will look into it and offer assistance as per the requirements of the situation.
Peace,
Tay -
Yes, it's easy to point out stupid rules, but I thought the whole idea of being progressive was to make ourselves more free, not to be enslaved to arbitrary authority. This is nothing to do with semantics, it is a genuine issue of the freedom of the individual.
-
Peace Mahmud,
"Stupid" to you - obviously not everyone else. Should "progressive" bow down to your whims? The point you seem to be missing is that this was installed as a result of abuse and enough people asking for it to be installed. It wasn't always there, nor did it magically appear, nor was it an arbitrary decision by a mod in lala-land. You've made your case and it wasn't very strong, nor did you get any support.
May peace be upon you,
Tay -
This has become a play on semantics. No one is out to hurt anyone - thus your calling it haram is unfounded. In fact, I would even go as far as calling it slightly deceitful if one's intention was to erase his/her post simply because he/she feels the need to correct something. In real life, there is no deleting of history. I'm not sure why you think this should be any different.
It's not unfounded at all. Of course there is no deleting of history. There is deleting of unnecessary information in the present. If you don't want to argue something anymore, you should be able to withdraw your argument.
And I'd call it remarkably naive of you to think that no one is out to hurt anyone. Do you think the world is full of sunshine and buttercups? Do you think that just because someone comes on to this website they have no aggression, no temper? No desire to win or to humiliate others? Have you never heard of Sigmund Freud?
