guhj wrote:...
This is a major issue with the current system, in my eyes. If I want to fix some small error, it's a project that will (literally) take weeks, if the page owner doesn't happen to be one who responds quickly. Let's say a new measurement has been made, and the south peak of Kebnekaise has been found to be 2111 m instead of 2104 m. I'd like to fix it, but if I'll have to spend maybe an hour or two of my time spread out over a couple of weeks, that's a pretty severe deterrent. If I could just click edit, fix the numbers, click save and have my edit show up, I'd do it.
The main reason that I don't provide a lot of feedback is that it's not easy. I'd like to fix small, easy mistakes, and bad grammar and other such "2 minute jobs", but it's just not worth the hassle of sending a PM, checking back in week to see if I got a response, talk to the elves, and all that.
I'm quite certain that a lot of things would be fixed if this huge hurdle was removed, which is why I'd like to see page owners allowing wikistyle editing of their pages.
Thanks for a clear expression of why it would be nicer to have collaborative editing, with all the caveats we've discussed of course (only owners who want it, only in sections they want it, only by "responsible SP citizens" with certain power points, etc.). I do see a lot of emphasis that some of us just don't understand all the options we have open to us (additions and corrections, emailing Elves, emailing authors, etc.). The example above shows why those options, which require at least one other person to respond or acquiese in some way, are simply not sufficient.
I don't hold it against people who wrote on this thread if they haven't contributed. As someone above said, only 1-2% of members here contribute (maybe that is an exaggeration). I don't see that as vindication of the idea that only their input should be considered. I see that as an embarassment and a problem for the long-term. More education programs won't help with this. We need to let people edit in smaller chunks than Mountain/Route. Not only would many more contribute, but more people would step up to become maintainers of public Mountain/Route pages because they can rely on the community to fill in items that they lack.
(Apologies if I'm repeating myself, I just really liked guhj's comment)...
EDIT TO ADD: the fact that I think a 1-2% authorship ratio is bad does not mean that I devalue the work of those authors. Page authors here have made Summitpost great, and unless they put all the effort in that they did we wouldn't be here talking about a desire to change X, Y and Z. I recognize that if these authors are against making meaningful changes, then changes won't happen. I don't mean any slight or say that with any bitterness, I think the only thing that can be done is articulate why another mode/style of editing would unleash the potential of many more members than that 1-2%. Thanks for the opportunity to address the forum. Lastly, I'm amazed and heartened by the lack of personal animosity on this thread. Usually somewhere after 10 pages a thread is just going to be insults n' JPEGs.