| Revision as of 05:14, 30 March 2021 editButwhatdoiknow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,817 edits →The problem with a "no consensus" revert: Re-write "Impedes consensus-building."← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:43, 30 March 2021 edit undoFrancis Schonken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,468 edits WP:Revert, ignoreTag: UndoNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their ] merely by saying that there is "]" for the change. Ask yourself: will preserving "consensus" be best for the editors and the readers? If you believe so, slow down, reread talk, verify sources and pause before acting. Genuine consent is freely given, while no consensus can be a take. | |||
| A '''no consensus revert''' is a ] with an ] saying only “],” “discuss first,” "take to talk," or something similar. This procedural objection gives the reverted editor no information regarding the substantive reason for the reversion. | |||
| == Don't be a jerk against boldness == | |||
| Consider these alternatives to a no consensus edit: If, in fact, the original text was the result of a consensus reached in a prior discussion (or is the subject of a current discussion) then include a link to that discussion in your edit summary. If, on the other hand, there is no consensus because you disagree with the change then keep in mind that ]. Explain why you disagree in the edit summary or on the talk page. Or better still, don 't revert. Instead, make your own edit to fix and improve upon the original edit. | |||
| “No consensus” reverting discourages ] contributions, which are essential to building Misplaced Pages. Be aware that the ] is subject to ]. “Discuss first” reverting of a bold editor, without starting such a discussion by stating basis for not including the reverted change, is no better: a discussion needs at least two parties. A reverted-editor deserves to know why the reverter believes the change should be reverted. A "first discuss" revert without any contribution on the talk page is neither helpful, constructive nor informative. See also: ] and ]. | |||
| === Actually start and contribute to discussions === | |||
| If one of your edits draws a no consensus revert start a conversation on the talk page and ask the reverting editor to provide a substantive rationale for the reversion. | |||
| ] | |||
| A “no consensus” revert without any further explanation is avoiding discussion. It's one of the strategies of ]. After all, reverting the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But when editors neglect to explain '''why''' they personally disagree with the edit or where the consensus in question was reached, they haven't given people a handle on how to build any new consensus that is desired to enhance WP's articles and the quality of their contributions. | |||
| == Reach out == | |||
| == The problem with a "no consensus" revert == | |||
| '''Impedes consensus-building.''' Misplaced Pages editors resolve a lack of consensus through an exchange of information leading to persuasion and compromise. Reverting an edit shows there is no consensus. Saying "no consensus" in the edit summary adds no new information. Worse, it forces the reverted editor to begin a talk page discussion just to find out the real reason for the revert. This hampers consensus-building by adding an unnecessary step to the process. ''See also'' ]. | |||
| ]]] | |||
| '''Discourteous to good faith editors.''' A substance-free revert implies the reverting editor ] the article and does not respect the reverted editor's right to edit it. This conduct from Misplaced Pages in frustration. If you don't have the time to edit courteously then you should not edit at all. ''See also:'' ] and ]. | |||
| '''Skips the D step in ].''' “No consensus” reverting discourages ] contributions, which are essential to building Misplaced Pages. ] employ this strategy to create the appearance of a substantive dispute regarding a change when little or none actually exists. | |||
| == Alternatives to a "no consensus" revert == | |||
| ] needs innovation, ] instead of standstill]] | ] needs innovation, ] instead of standstill]] | ||
| Handles to build consensus are needed by both sides of the debate. If you can't point out an underlying problem with an edit, there is no reason to immediately revert it. ]. If you just have a bad gut feeling about the edit, try to put appropriate quality tags and put some questions at the talk page. Involve portals and experienced authors. Finally, there may in fact exist ] to keep the change. ], and is thus not canceled by one editor's objection. Furthermore, if an edit really breaks certain established consensus, you should be able to refer to the discussion section, FAQ set, portal policy where this consensus was established. Edits to ] may be reverted without much such notions - as in those cases the establishment of consensus needs no further proof. But note that ] - consensus can change - applies there as well. That said, it's the responsibility of the reverter to show and prove the consensus in question. One might as well ask editors which had an intense discussion on a certain aspect to mark and summarize the reached consensus formally. Misplaced Pages lacks tools to identify milestones of an articles development and neither has sufficient templates nor pointers for talk pages. | |||
| === Don't revert === | |||
| Everyone in a dispute needs to understand what the dispute is about. If you can't name a specific problem with an edit, there is no reason to immediately revert it. ]. If you just have a bad gut feeling about the edit, try to put appropriate quality tags and put some questions at the talk page. Involve noticeboards, WikiProjects, and other experienced authors. Finally, there may in fact exist ] to keep the change. ], and is thus not canceled by a single editor's objection. | |||
| === Be friendly towards new content and perspectives === | |||
| Misplaced Pages should encourage contributors and |
Misplaced Pages should encourage contributors and atttract new contributors to be bold in editing articles. Experienced authors may however tend to defends articles as their ] and may be under a ] against innovation and new perspectives. Don't protect Misplaced Pages against new content and don't be anxious if other authors seem to have found evidence you not had heard of before. That might happen. Scientific knowledge and knowledge in general is exploding. Misplaced Pages should follow and welcome it, not exclude it. Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter ]. Moreover, if one editor favors a new addition (i.e. its contributor), and another opposes it (i.e. the potential reverter), consensus is no closer to being ''against'' it than ''for'' it until more editors comment or edit, or until the two editors in question can move toward a compromise, preferably through editing. | ||
| === Think about what you want and state it === | |||
| Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter ]. Moreover, if one editor favors a new addition (i.e. its contributor), and another opposes it (i.e. the potential reverter), consensus is no closer to being ''against'' it than ''for'' it until more editors comment or edit, or until the two editors in question can move toward a compromise, preferably through editing. So ask yourself: will preserving "consensus" be best for the editors and the readers? If you believe so, slow down, reread talk, verify sources and pause before acting. | |||
| ⚫ | '''Never''' revert a change that you personally believe is a net improvement to the page. If you believe that the change is an improvement, then you should not revert it, even if you are convinced that someone else will object to it. Let the editors who object to it do their own reverting. Then the original contributor will know who disagrees with it and who needs to be involved in the discussion. | ||
| === Link to consensus === | |||
| Furthermore, if an edit really breaks a specific, established consensus, you should be able to refer to the discussion section, FAQ set, policy, or other written page where this consensus was established. Note that even if you can link to a prior discussion, ], and it may have done so. It's the responsibility of the reverter to show and prove the consensus in question. | |||
| === Fix the edit === | |||
| :''See also'' ] and ]. | |||
| It is best to first consider whether there is a substantive problem with the edit in question. Mention that. Tag it. If it added unsourced or poorly-sourced information, try to find said information yourself, or failing that, note that in the revert summary. If it made the presentation of material awkward, tag it. Edit to make the presentation less awkward. Question awkwardness on the talk page. If the bold edit added a biased statement among others less controversial, try to find a way to recast the bias into a neutral mode or just revert that aspect only. Avoid ]s. If it added instructions on how to do something, explain that ]. If it removed content with no explanation or an unconvincing one, note that you are restoring valid content, and why the explanation is unconvincing (if the edit summary box is too small for this, ]). | It is best to first consider whether there is a substantive problem with the edit in question. Mention that. Tag it. If it added unsourced or poorly-sourced information, try to find said information yourself, or failing that, note that in the revert summary. If it made the presentation of material awkward, tag it. Edit to make the presentation less awkward. Question awkwardness on the talk page. If the bold edit added a biased statement among others less controversial, try to find a way to recast the bias into a neutral mode or just revert that aspect only. Avoid ]s. If it added instructions on how to do something, explain that ]. If it removed content with no explanation or an unconvincing one, note that you are restoring valid content, and why the explanation is unconvincing (if the edit summary box is too small for this, ]). | ||
| == In general, what to do about controversial or just large edits == | |||
| === Explain the revert === | |||
| If you feel that an edit should not stand, but you can't point to any specific reason, stop and think before you act. Just never make any edit without a reason. | If you feel that an edit should not stand, but you can't point to any specific reason, stop and think before you act. Just never make any edit without a reason. | ||
| # Stop. Think. Look at the talk page or the edit summary, check whether the edit has a reasonable rationale and quality sources. | # Stop. Think. Look at the talk page or the edit summary, check whether the edit has a reasonable rationale and quality sources. | ||
| Line 47: | Line 33: | ||
| Stay friendly. Misplaced Pages should stay a ]. Life is hard enough. | Stay friendly. Misplaced Pages should stay a ]. Life is hard enough. | ||
| ==Especially== | |||
| == How to respond to a “no consensus” revert == | |||
| ⚫ | '''Never''' revert a change that you personally believe is a net improvement to the page. If you believe that the change is an improvement, then you should not revert it, even if you are convinced that someone else will object to it. Let the editors who object to it do their own reverting. Then the original contributor will know who disagrees with it and who needs to be involved in the discussion. | ||
| Step one: start a discussion on talk. Yes, you shouldn’t have to do it. And yes, it is a pain. But it’s the best path to a civil resolution of of the dispute. Use a Subject/headline such as “Revert of January 5, 2011,” start the text with a {{tl|ping}} to the reverting editor, and then add text along the lines of “Please provide the substantive rationale for your reversion.” Don’t forget to sign your post (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). | |||
| If the reverting editor '''does not reply''' within three days then, on the fourth day, ] to assure that editor is active and has had a fair chance to respond. If so, post a follow up message with a ping and text such as “it appears from your silence that you no longer object to this change. If you do still object, please let me know why within the next three days.” | |||
| If you get no reply then, on the fourth day, revert the reversion “per talk.” If you get a substantive reply then work to reach a consensus. If you get a fresh revert or a talk reply that amounts to nothing more than “I still object” you have reached an impasse. It’s time to consider the options listed at ]. | |||
| If the reverting editor simply '''repeats “no consensus”''' (or some variant) on talk, respond with something like “I am here now hoping to work with you toward a consensus. Would you please tell me what, if anything, you find objectionable about the change you reverted?” | |||
| If the reverting editor '''claims other editors must express agreement''' with your change, reply with text such as “I do not read ] as requiring an affirmative consensus for Misplaced Pages edits. Can I find that requirement somewhere else? Also, would you please tell me whether you have any other reason for your revert?” | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages essays|building}} | {{Misplaced Pages essays|building}} | ||
Revision as of 05:43, 30 March 2021
Essay on editing Misplaced Pages | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. | Shortcuts |
 | This page in a nutshell: If the only thing you have to say about a contribution to the encyclopedia is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it. |
Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change. Ask yourself: will preserving "consensus" be best for the editors and the readers? If you believe so, slow down, reread talk, verify sources and pause before acting. Genuine consent is freely given, while no consensus can be a take.
Don't be a jerk against boldness
“No consensus” reverting discourages bold contributions, which are essential to building Misplaced Pages. Be aware that the Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is subject to Misplaced Pages:BRD misuse. “Discuss first” reverting of a bold editor, without starting such a discussion by stating basis for not including the reverted change, is no better: a discussion needs at least two parties. A reverted-editor deserves to know why the reverter believes the change should be reverted. A "first discuss" revert without any contribution on the talk page is neither helpful, constructive nor informative. See also: Misplaced Pages:Don't be a jerk and Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition.
Actually start and contribute to discussions
A “no consensus” revert without any further explanation is avoiding discussion. It's one of the strategies of Misplaced Pages:Status quo stonewalling. After all, reverting the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But when editors neglect to explain why they personally disagree with the edit or where the consensus in question was reached, they haven't given people a handle on how to build any new consensus that is desired to enhance WP's articles and the quality of their contributions.
Reach out
Handles to build consensus are needed by both sides of the debate. If you can't point out an underlying problem with an edit, there is no reason to immediately revert it. Revert only when necessary. If you just have a bad gut feeling about the edit, try to put appropriate quality tags and put some questions at the talk page. Involve portals and experienced authors. Finally, there may in fact exist silent consensus to keep the change. Consensus is not unanimity, and is thus not canceled by one editor's objection. Furthermore, if an edit really breaks certain established consensus, you should be able to refer to the discussion section, FAQ set, portal policy where this consensus was established. Edits to long-standing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines may be reverted without much such notions - as in those cases the establishment of consensus needs no further proof. But note that Misplaced Pages:CCC - consensus can change - applies there as well. That said, it's the responsibility of the reverter to show and prove the consensus in question. One might as well ask editors which had an intense discussion on a certain aspect to mark and summarize the reached consensus formally. Misplaced Pages lacks tools to identify milestones of an articles development and neither has sufficient templates nor pointers for talk pages.
Be friendly towards new content and perspectives
Misplaced Pages should encourage contributors and atttract new contributors to be bold in editing articles. Experienced authors may however tend to defends articles as their personal turf and may be under a Semmelweis reflex against innovation and new perspectives. Don't protect Misplaced Pages against new content and don't be anxious if other authors seem to have found evidence you not had heard of before. That might happen. Scientific knowledge and knowledge in general is exploding. Misplaced Pages should follow and welcome it, not exclude it. Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter simply did not like the edit. Moreover, if one editor favors a new addition (i.e. its contributor), and another opposes it (i.e. the potential reverter), consensus is no closer to being against it than for it until more editors comment or edit, or until the two editors in question can move toward a compromise, preferably through editing.
Think about what you want and state it
It is best to first consider whether there is a substantive problem with the edit in question. Mention that. Tag it. If it added unsourced or poorly-sourced information, try to find said information yourself, or failing that, note that in the revert summary. If it made the presentation of material awkward, tag it. Edit to make the presentation less awkward. Question awkwardness on the talk page. If the bold edit added a biased statement among others less controversial, try to find a way to recast the bias into a neutral mode or just revert that aspect only. Avoid Overzealous deletions. If it added instructions on how to do something, explain that Misplaced Pages is not a manual. If it removed content with no explanation or an unconvincing one, note that you are restoring valid content, and why the explanation is unconvincing (if the edit summary box is too small for this, continue on the talk page).
In general, what to do about controversial or just large edits
If you feel that an edit should not stand, but you can't point to any specific reason, stop and think before you act. Just never make any edit without a reason.
- Stop. Think. Look at the talk page or the edit summary, check whether the edit has a reasonable rationale and quality sources.
- Note your concerns and think about which tags or questions describe them best.
- Edit the page to tag questionable edits or change them appropriately.
- Provide your rationale and your doubts and questions in edit summaries on the talk page.
- If you really cannot find a way to incorporate the edit, revert it. Boldly.
- Explain why. At least in the summary. Even if the reason seems obvious to you, it will not always be obvious to someone else.
Stay friendly. Misplaced Pages should stay a comedy of the commons. Life is hard enough.
Especially
Never revert a change that you personally believe is a net improvement to the page. If you believe that the change is an improvement, then you should not revert it, even if you are convinced that someone else will object to it. Let the editors who object to it do their own reverting. Then the original contributor will know who disagrees with it and who needs to be involved in the discussion.
Categories: