rukayaj
commented
6 years ago Ok, I have:
- Created a new long rich text field called rebuttal for species
- Renamed Rebuttal comments field to just Comments/Comment
- Removed the ability for anonymous users to see comments (check with http://nssl.sanbi.org.za/species/adenium-swazicum)
I think this covers everything. I don't think Rebelo will be happy about it though, he wanted to make sure that members of the public knew when there's debate about a particular species and he didn't seem to trust the taxon leads (champions as they were then called) to portray it faithfully. But I think that might just be Tony. Anyway I am closing this issue, please reopen it if anything is broken or it doesn't do what we want.
From discussion with Brenda and Selwyn 11 Oct, it seems like some refinement could be made on rebuttals.
The idea is that the published version of these would be a crafted summary of the internal (taxon lead/expert) discussions. So maybe the best design would be to have 'rebuttal' being another (rich text) field for the species itself, which could be edited by the taxon leads/experts.
What are currently called 'rebuttals' could rather be 'comments', which are never visible to non logged-in users. This would provide the space to capture opinions prior to shaping them into a distinct 'statement of dissent' that would be put into the rebuttal field of the species itself. And the comments would not need to be editable/deletable (except by the site admin, as currently set up) since they would not ever be visible to the public. This would simplify things I think.