Editor-B is the person who never actually submitted it, and the [Edit History] wouldn't need to reflect that he even tried. It could, for collision statistics (!), but it wouldn't be required.

5 minutes is, of course, arbitrary. It's plenty to change a simple spelling, worse if you're doing heavy duty reformatting. I'm not really fond of this idea, but one could add a box that would allow you to enter the expected number of minutes you think it might take you to edit it. But that's yucky.

Of course, none of these nodes are critical to national security, so if someone does start an edit, and the system timer is 30 minutes, it just means that it'll be about 30 minutes until the next person can edit it. I don't see that as a major issue.

And as far as /msg'ing the original author that his node has been edited, I don't know how I feel about that. I imagine it would be easy enough for vroom to add that, but I don't know if it's necessary. Perhaps YACB (Yet Another Check Box) to make that an option. If someone is fixing code tags, I don't see where the author needs to know about it, since s/he probably wasn't smart enough in the first place. On the other hand, if you're deleting socially questionable comments, the author has more of a right to know. I'm indifferent, at least until I see how it goes.

I'm sort of the mind that the [Edit History] should be public, so that non-editors can make a sport of checking out nodes that have been edited, and then start a whole list of threads to be edited by complaining about the ones that have been edited...

If someone is fixing code tags, I don't see where the author needs to know about it, since s/he probably wasn't smart enough in the first place.

It is a matter of nudging them towards epiphany. If you just fix the node quietly, it does not aid the author at all. If you send them a message, perhaps they will check to see what is different. Each person's nodes may not be as important as national security to us, but they are pretty important to the author. If they weren't, people wouldn't get all bent out of shape over XP and reputation.

On the other hand, if you're deleting socially questionable comments, the author has more of a right to know.

It is my feeling, generally following from the First Amendment, that editors should be keeping their grubby little fingers (mine too) out of the content. As far as I understood it, the editors sole responsibility is layout and navigation problems.
I keep seeing people considering nodes with complaints about the content or the titles. I always vote to keep those nodes as is because I do not like heavy-handedness. Not to mention the fact that a disclaimer like "Your post may be edited for content" is conspicuously absent when posts are submitted.

I'm sort of the mind that the Edit History should be public, so that non-editors can make a sport of checking out nodes that have been edited, and then start a whole list of threads to be edited by complaining about the ones that have been edited...

Which will not happen if content is left alone.

There is one case in which I think it is acceptable to edit content. This is the case in which the site's policies towards content are written down and conspicuously posted, with aforementioned disclaimer and a link to the policy shown (perhaps above the textbox) to posters prior to submission.

I am a hard-liner on free speech here because I think it is too easy for the site to morph into a place where "stupid" questions are silenced. And it's not hard to imagine, given how many times I've seen someone put "Please delete because this is a FAQ" as their reason for considering a node. The site has a lot of users who are here because it has in the past been extremely friendly, tolerant, and patient -- required characteristics of teachers.

If trolls take over the site, I will rethink my position, but they seem to be under control right now.

e-mail neshura

I agree completely about changing content, with one caveat - changing the *title* of a node can be seen as changing the content, but how many nodes named "Help!!!!" do we really need anyway? :)

I also agree that there is a recent influx of Considered Nodes that are posted because people do not like the question. Please use the power to nominate only for markup problems, bad titles, *obvious* trolls (i.e. Camel Code #2), and things in the wrong section. The fact that someone did not consult the FAQ or do a Super Search is more a failure on the part of the Monastery than on the part of the novice, IMO, as we should be trying harder to guide them there.