2

To get some clarification into this, I propose voting on whether basic misspellings and correction of cx and ch into ĉ should be allowed. Important point: When quoting from a source that uses the x- or h-system, one might want to keep this and not over-correct.

Addition: This is not a duplicate of "what should our standpoint be on edits?", it's to add a clarification to that. Plus, see the answer which proposes posting questions like these (in that question).

3
  • Possible duplicate of What should be our standpoints for edits?
    – apaderno
    Oct 11 '16 at 7:09
  • Since a newbie (Kat Ño) wrote in the comments to that post that he felt unsure if it was okay to edit cxapelaj literoj, I thought it was a good idea to show that that is okay. It should be a quick and easy decision to agree on. Oct 12 '16 at 6:04
  • The question is still the same, even if you put it in shape of proposal, since other users still need to up-vote the proposal.
    – apaderno
    Oct 12 '16 at 15:27
11

Vote for this if you want all misspellings and cxapelaj literoj corrected

Of course we should edit all cx's and ch's into ĉ! Misspellings in English are also all corrected, especially those that hinder an understanding of the question. We still might leave quotes in original x- or h-sistemo, that's up to the editer and original questioner.

13
  • 1
    Users who agree with this will already up-vote. There is no need of adding "vote this if you agree" and "vote this if you don't agree" answers.
    – apaderno
    Oct 11 '16 at 5:54
  • 1
    Sure. I just wanted to make it 100% clear. 👍 And I wanted to make sure that if someone has another opinion, they would add another alternative to vote for. Oct 11 '16 at 6:00
  • That is what it works on meta sites: If somebody has a different opinion, or a reason not to do as you suggest, they write it as answer. In any case, there isn't the need of an answer from the user proposing something.
    – apaderno
    Oct 11 '16 at 6:55
  • 2
    @kiamlaluno I actually think that it is a good idea to use the meta like this in order to be able to make decisions together. In that case the same person can post the question and several options, and there shouldn't be any downvoting. Of course, these kinds of meta-posts aren't how they were intended at first, but it is the best solution I can think of. Do you have a better idea? Oct 11 '16 at 19:15
  • @AntoniaMontaro If I make a proposal, I write the question saying what I propose. There is no need to write an answer saying "vote this if you agree." Users who agree up-vote the question; users who disagree down-vote the question. If you add an answer, you complicate things for nothing. Do you count the up-votes for the question, or the answer?
    – apaderno
    Oct 11 '16 at 19:50
  • This is how these questions are handled on other meta sites. I am not inventing anything.
    – apaderno
    Oct 11 '16 at 19:52
  • 2
    @kiamlaluno Sure, I see. I simply thought it might be possible that you vote up to show it was a good idea to bring up this question, not neccesarily agreeing with the solution the person asking has in mind. If that is how people make decisions on other sites, we can work like that here. Oct 11 '16 at 19:57
  • @AntoniaMontaro If then you ask to Stack Exchange Community Managers, they will tell you that a question where the OP is also adding answers like this one becomes a polling. I personally have seen such comment being posted.
    – apaderno
    Oct 11 '16 at 19:59
  • @kiamlaluno Ah, okay. Then, what is a polling? Is there something bad about this status? I have no idea how things usually work on these sites. Oct 11 '16 at 20:02
  • @AntoniaMontaro Just leave the answers to somebody who really has something to say. It is not different from the main site: On a question asking which word between two should be used, the OP doesn't add "vote this if you think word A should be used" and "vote this if you think word B should be used" as answers.
    – apaderno
    Oct 11 '16 at 20:43
  • Imagine a proposal you can split into three options. Would you add an answer for each options (and maybe an answer for each combination)? Answers from users who have valid points to be raised would be mixed with those pre-built answers, making difficult for them to be noticed.
    – apaderno
    Oct 11 '16 at 20:46
  • 1
    @kiamlaluno People aren't really very active on meta. This should be a really simple decision. As you can see, I didn't add any alternative answers. Oct 12 '16 at 6:15
  • Still, it is not how meta works. Would you add an answer saying vote this if you agree using "word A" in a question asking which of which two words you should use, in the main site? The same is here. It doesn't matter if you just add an answer or more than one.
    – apaderno
    Oct 12 '16 at 15:30
7

All misspelt words and glaring errors and any cx code in Esperanto should be corrected. English spelling is not that important. Esperanto is the language we are talking about and trying to teach. It's also the weaker language of most of our readers.

But don't overdo it. I would simply correct definas to difinas and PIV difinas la vorto to PIV difinas la vorton. But if someone wrote Tiu frazo ne estas korekta, I could possibly add a comment about the dubious nature of the word korekta. I would not harshly change the word. Some people and even the Academy frown upon it, others approve of it, both of them with good reasons. We are not the inquisition dealing with heretics.

6
  • I totally agree, but still don't understand how in practice to achieve this. You cannot change PIV difinas la vorto to PIV difinas la vorton because the system only allows us to correct 6 characters or more. I have seen a lot of questions with just one error. Just leave them like this? Oct 17 '16 at 5:40
  • @PaŭlPeeraerts : When I saw "definas" in a question and tried to modify the word I got a similar refusal from the system. I thought the limitation only concerned me an not the author of the question, so I added a comment asking for a correction. Later I noticed that someone else had corrected the word and the trick probably was first deleting the word, perhaps even more to satisty the odd system, and then adding the same text with the "e" changed to I". – Perhaps I'm wrong. Anyway, I don't understand the motivation behind this behaviour of Stackexhange. Oct 17 '16 at 17:26
  • 1
    I think part of it is that you might not have enough points yet. Additionally, it says in the SE policy that bigger edits are preferred - edits lead to posts being bumped up and if there's nothing substantially new, I imagine that could be annoying. Oct 19 '16 at 17:31
  • Maybe. I'll try it out again. Oct 19 '16 at 17:33
  • 1
    Yes, Charlotte, you are right. I have more than 1000 points now, and now I can change even one mistake. I do think that one accusative error should be corrected, even if that creates nothing substatially new to the question or answer ;-) Oct 20 '16 at 7:13
  • I agree with you 100%! We're all here to learn or use good Esperanto. It's always worth it to correct the accusative and other non-accusative uses of the n-finajxo. 😉 Oct 23 '16 at 8:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .