Normally contributions do not always need to be signed on an EgolessWiki
. However there are occasions when contributions are SignedWithaPurpose
, including SigningWithaDate
, using Wiki UserName
so others know it came from you, and using signatures within the text of your contribution.
This page was started by a contributor, to discuss the case of using signatures within the contribution.
Here are several scenarios for SignedWithaPurpose
, using signatures within the text of your contribution:
- "When a contribution is enclosed within quotes as this is and the author wishes to show that these are words which are considered to be said by and can be attributed to the signer"
- -- MarkRogers
In this case the words should be left verbatim and entire, or deleted complete with the signature if deletion is found to be necessary. It should not be changed or cut in length.
When a contribution is not enclosed within quotes as this is and the author wishes to indicate that as a signer one may change in any Wiki
Manner the content provided to make it more correct, appropriate, complete, accurate or comprehensive, or to condense, make shorter, more concise and to the point. The added value of being able to contact the writer via the HomePage
of the Signatory or if an email address is given there, to email comments or items of discussion to the Email address.
When a contribution is in the form of a question and if the responder wishes to respond, not on the page, but directly, or when the answerer seeks further clarification about the question particularly if it seems unclear or incompletely framed, by using the HomePage
or Email address of the Questioner who has signed the Contribution.
When the poster wishes to identify the posting as being authored by and originating by the signer of the posting. This is particularly appropriate when it may be part of a larger work such as a paper, book, article or other such document, Internet Site, page or work and is presented to support or confirm the page premise.
Is the convention described above used anyway? I have never seen it.
-- another person
Nor have I, but I would suggest that such usage would inhibit refactoring to DocumentMode
. Rather than letting a signed contribution or signed quote stake a claim on a page, I would tend to delete either the signature or the entire contribution, as seems appropriate to the refactoring. If a poster wishes to maintain control over contributions, the poster would be well-advised to use a medium other than this wiki. -- a person other than another person
This horse is, if not dead, surely eligible for the Last Rites. Compare WikiSignature and RefactorWhileRespectingSignatures. "When a contribution is enclosed within quotes as this is and the author wishes to show that these are words which are considered to be said by and can be attributed to the signer" - what difference do quotes make? If the author really, really doesn't want their signature removed, they can say PleaseDontDeleteMyName, but generally speaking a signature implies they wish the comment to remain signed. -- EarleMartin HadTheLastWord? (Delete this signature when the time is right.)
The difference is that in a case where the signed post may have included statements which are not necessarily attributable to the signer, (or any other identifiable and attributed source), that the unquoted portions may be refactored at will to reflect consensus, or the desires of the refactorer. "This is to allow the signer the option of exerting and maintaining personal accountability, responsibility and authority", even though many think these are to be avoided, and who work hard to maintain an A
nonymousAnarchy, where these are not present." -- "MarkRogers