| Revision as of 03:27, 28 March 2014 editMakyen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,493 edits →top: correct archive bot archive counter to 2.← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:41, 29 March 2014 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Revert only when necessary/Archive 2) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| |indexhere=yes | |indexhere=yes | ||
| }}__TOC__{{clear}} | }}__TOC__{{clear}} | ||
| == Driving away editors == | |||
| It's important to note that reversion has an impact beyond just risking edit wars. More specifically, reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Misplaced Pages, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Misplaced Pages, and unfortunately not as dramatically evidenced as the spate of mutually negating edits resulting from an edit war. Perhaps this hazard of reverting is worth noting on the project page. ] (]) 16:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :You should note that on the project page. However, it is almost certain that someone will revert you the next minute, and the idiot won't even realize he's proving your point. Such is Misplaced Pages, nothing but a battleground. Eventually, all editors who actually know stuff will be driven away, and the remaining morons will have to create artificial intelligence robots with whom to do battle. ] (]) 00:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I added it, let's see if it gets reverted ] (]) 20:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ... on the grounds that someone else might disagree == | |||
| ] | |||
| is clearly an improvement, but it still seems like ] to me. I've been around for quite a while, and I can't think of any situation in which this advice would have outweighed the cost of hundreds of people having to read it. Are there any examples for where this would really make a difference? — ] 09:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I seem to experience this from time to time - particularly at pages that have taken on some kind of "hallowed" status, like policies and guidelines - people seem to think that every tiny wording tweak needs to be discussed first, and will revert them even if they don't seem to have any personal objection to them. (Of course, having the caution written into this essay is no guarantee that it will have any effect on anyone's behaviour, but it seems just as valid as the other points that are made here.)--] (]) 10:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't see that at all. Quite to the contrary: If anything, we should rather encourage people to be more conservative. Because I'm asking for real examples, I just looked at the or WP:U (which is just the first guideline that came to mind that might conceivably called "hallowed"). Last month, we had 10 non-bot edits, of which only two refer to the talk page. Not a single one has been reverted, even though one could easily disagree with some of them. — ] 10:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well yes, that's how it should be - no-one disagreed with them, so time and goodwill wasn't wasted by people reverting them, insisting they be discussed on the talk page, and then it turning out there were no substantial arguments against the change. But on other occasions some people have a tendency to revert as a knee-jerk reaction to something they think someone else might object to (or for some similar non-substantial reason - you never know what someone's ''real'' motivation is).--] (]) 12:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Whether those edits are or are not improvements is a different question; here is not the place to discuss that. I only looked at that page to find an example what you meant by " hallowed status". Since neither of us so far has bee able to find any such example, despite our best efforts, it is obvious that such examples are hard to come by. | |||
| :::: Conversely, examples for why we need to fight instruction creep are very easy to find; this very addition itself is one. After all that has been said here, it seems obvious to me that the evidence speaks clearly against the inclusion, so I will remove it one last time and then disengage. If you insist on reinserting it, I will not remove it anymore. We both are well-intended volunteers here with much better to do than quibble here. We have many interests beyond this essay and I don't want either of us to waste any more time on this. — ] 17:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC) {{User:SebastianHelm/unwatched}} | |||
| == Rejected attempt to alter this advice == | == Rejected attempt to alter this advice == | ||
Revision as of 00:41, 29 March 2014
 | Misplaced Pages essays Low‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives (index) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Rejected attempt to alter this advice
This attempt was rejected in connection with the editor's tendentious abuse of the close paraphrasing banner at Materialism, see Misplaced Pages talk:Close paraphrasing#Reversion of change to milder problems template and Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Can quotation marks inside quotations within quotations be altered?.—Machine Elf 20:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Preventing degradation through entropy
I am concerned by the new section Preventing degradation through entropy, added by User:Boundlessly. It includes the quote "Don't make the edit in the first place unless it's necessary" in support of its position, but offers no link, only referring to this Talk page, which doesn't seem helpful for those who seek to understand the logic of the guideline. Most importantly, however, it seems to directly contradict the spirit of WP by discouraging contribution. It runs counter to Misplaced Pages:Be bold, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, and Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. I would further note the irony in Boundlessly having reverted an edit on this project page, Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary, and accomanying it with the comment "The link is intentional by an older wiser previous editor." This seems to betray a presumptuous superiority, which again seems counter to the ethos necessary for a vital WP. ENeville (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm ok with deleting the section. It's off-topic. Also, the "older wiser" editor was actually an anonymous IP wrongly adding a link to a header] Bhny (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's been a few months and I am removing this section. Critically, it still offers no criteria for assessing whether the preceding or following edit is appropriate, so it doesn't illuminate the propriety of reversion. ENeville (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
point, please
This essay does not seem to conform to its title. The title states what sounds to me like good advice: revert only when necessary. But the body of the essay never actually gives that advice. I think it ought to, and in somewhat more detail than the title. The current lead makes it an article about how editors tend to avoid edit wars. The current body then strays from that to advise against edit warring and to give reasons one might avoid reverting.
My observation is mostly one about the need for a better lead and better organization, but there's a substantial issue as well: is reverting only to be avoided in the context of an edit war, or should one avoid the very first revert, giving deference to another editor who has taken the time to make an affirmative edit? Is it OK to revert an edit one finds unnecessary, even if one doesn't find it harmful?
I'd be happy to take a run at making the essay have a clear point, but I wonder whether that point should be 1) revert only when necessary; 2) don't create an edit war; or 3) here are some ideas on the use of reversion in Misplaced Pages. The current article seems to straddle these three.
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I did it. There's a lot more work to do than I thought to make all the essays on reverting consistent and readable, but I hope at least to make this the center of advice on when reversion are and are not appropriate.
- I plan to keep working on the reversion essays, a section or two at a time.
Difference between Zero-revert rule and Don't re-revert
What is the distinction intended to be? Is it specifically the lack of an exception for "obvious vandalism" in the latter? (Existing discussions on this talk page weren't of much help.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- The distinction is that the zero revert rule applies to all reversions whereas "don't re-revert" applies only to re-reversions. Example: The Israel article says the capital is Jerusalem. John edits it to say Tel Aviv. Mary considers changing it back to Jerusalem, which would be a reversion. 0RR says Mary should not do that without discussing it first. Don't re-revert doesn't apply because John's edit is not a reversion. But let's assume Mary is not following 0RR, so she goes ahead and changes it back to Jerusalem, thus reverting John's edit. John now is faced with the decision of whether to change it to Tel Aviv again. Such an edit would be a re-revert, so both 0RR and "don't re-revert" are relevant. John would refrain if he is following either of the two policies.
- Probably the reason vandalism isn't mentioned in "don't re-revert" is that it would be next to impossible for a reversion to be obvious vandalism. Hmm, I suppose a vandal might revert someone's reversion of obvious vandalism, and that reversion would be obvious vandalism. Maybe that should be covered, but maybe it's just common sense and shouldn't muddy up an essay.
- Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess I didn't read carefully enough, despite my effort. Sorry for any inconvenience. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you made an effort and still didn't get the point, the essay has to take some of the blame.
- I don't know exactly where the text lost you, but I guessed and made a small change to the section that will possibly make the point less missable in the future. I classified the 3 rules by total number of reversions: 0 (zero-revert rule), 1 (don't re-revert) and 2 (one-revert rule). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)