Please login to ask a follow-up ping.
No pings yet.
One of the main problems in merging the permanence of printed materials with our hypertext internet is what to do with edits. In printed documents, the costs of recalling inaccurate or plagiarized information are so great that editors and fact checkers are used to comb through material prior to release. Newspapers developed their own convention by listing corrections in subsequent editions while academic journals will publish retractions if necessary.
With online text, however, information could always be open to revision. Since the information is usually accessed on demand, authors could revise as necessary to create an evolving document rather than a stable one. This flexibility presents a problem which pits the need for accuracy against the need for stable copies. This tension between accuracy and stability is perhaps best shown in wiki documents that preserve previous versions but which continue to change on a daily, if not hourly, basis.
We're trying to foster the right balance between preservation and accuracy. But we think you, as the author, are best able to judge which is most important for each of your knugs. Since resonance is accumulated as a knug ages, if you choose to edit a knug, it is difficult to show what has changed to a reader who has previously read that knug and perhaps lit it up. This difficulty in clearly  showing, and weighting, the changes is why we reset the resonance. It is less problematic for you if a knug is new and you want to make changes. However, as the knug ages, it forces you to consider whether the edit is necessary against the resonance the knug has accumulated. If you think a knug has changed drastically since you wrote it, why not simply fork the knug and create a new one?
 Yes, we could implement some revision control. And it's something we're seriously considering. But we have many, many questions that need decent answers first! It would be great read your forks.
No knugs yet.