Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:52, 27 December 2005

You haven't summarised it in a one-liner yet. Stevage 03:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still trying to come up with some concise, yet meaningful wording. Any suggestions? Carbonite | Talk 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Good page, but please merge/redirect in from 0RR, 1RR and Misplaced Pages:Revert. Radiant_>|< 03:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm going to redirect the 1RR very soon. Hopefully the 0RR can also be merged and redirected soon. I think that Misplaced Pages:Revert needs to remain though, since it has info on the mechanics of a revert, something this page doesn't and shouldn't cover. The sections I took from that page can probably be removed though and replaced with a link to this page. Carbonite | Talk 03:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I object to redirecting 1RR. That's still a valid page people refer to. Dan100 (Talk) 11:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: This concern was addressed. Carbonite | Talk 00:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Differences between 0RR and ROWN

• ORR encourages editors to improve upon but don't remove changes you don't like, it is unclear whether the "necessary" in "revert only when necessary" applies to changes you don't like or not.
• ROWN perpetuates an "us" vs "them" mentality of one point of view somehow "winning" out over another.
• There is much less chance of direct or inadvertent censorship with 0RR compared to ROWN.
• There is much less chance of viewpoint mischaracterization with 0RR compared to ROWN as 0RR will encourage an article to be a superset of all viewpoints and sources instead of one side stifled into accepting a reverted version of an article.
• The 0RR allows editors to be bold as it encourages the inclusion other editors changes in addition to your own changes, the ROWN discourages being bold.
• Any "reverting" of a fellow editor's changes or additions that were made in good faith can have the effect of stifling contribution to wikipedia and/or inflaming tensions. When not obvious or simple vandalism editors should be given the benefit of the doubt that their contributions add something to an article.
• Clue: some of the editors that have come out against WP:0RR are the ones supporting a merge of that to ROWN... zen master T 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Right now, ROWN is a Frankenstein creation of text from many pages. I'm hoping to see much of the 0RR text merged into ROWN so the "revert-limiting" rules can all be in one place. I highly encourage you to mercilessly edit ROWN until you believe it's more satisfactory. Trust me, it needs it. ;) Incorporate as much of the text from other proposals as you feel is appropriate. Once ROWN is in better shape, we can start gauging whether it should be a guideline. Carbonite | Talk 19:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, I support merging in order to avoid an wildgrowth of guidelines. Only question: should it be titled ROWN or ORR? I guess ORR is best as title because it's more provocative and easier to remember. Next it should be made clear in the text that in practice ORR is not always doable or beneficial - adding superfluous or deviating phrases at certain places can be detrimental for an article. Harald88 22:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that ROWN would be a better title since "Reverting only when necessary" is a superset of 0RR (and 1RR, etc...). Also, as you pointed out, the 0RR is quite often not very realistic in practice. Carbonite | Talk 23:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I would share your thinking if this was either an article or a policy. However, a guideline has different goals, it is foremost to be inspiring and for that a catchy title such as 0RR is much better; a guideline doesn't need to follow the structure of a patent proposal. Anyway, after voting for merging, we may vote for which title to give it; without a merge it's not worth to waste much time on that question. Harald88 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you want to merge the 0RR text here if you were/are against 0RR? How does being against 0RR make a merge to ROWN seem reasonable to you? The 0RR is not a "revert-limiting" rule it frees editors from the limitations of thinking in terms of "reverting". zen master T 19:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually not against the 0RR. I was against calling it a guideline before editors had even seen the page. That's why I tried to make it a proposed guideline. But that's in the past now. I'm created this more general page as a central location for any of the X-revert rules or other guidelines for avoiding or limiting reverts. This page is still in it's infant stages, so I would welcome any edits that help it to mature. Carbonite | Talk 19:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Only someone that is against something would move it to user space over a header dispute. What you call more "general" I call "ineffectual" and "tangential". Given that 0RR and ROWN are distinct it would be helpful if you withdrew your merge request, let the community decide whether one or both guidelines garner wide spread support. zen master T 20:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already explained at length that I moved the page because it was not a guideline and Peter expressed no interest in having it as a proposed guideline. But again, that's not especially relevant to this proposal. I'm rather baffled that you criticize a proposal that I've already admited is in "infant stages" and needs to be edited "mercilessly". Why not change the parts you disagree with? I see ROWN as a superset of 0RR (as well as 1RR and other reversion guidelines), not as a replacement. If you believe that ROWN fails at this, please change it. Carbonite | Talk 20:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You mischaracterize Peter's argument when you say "Peter expressed no interest in having it a proposed guideline". Peter's argument was that guidelines are exactly rules of thumb followed by a small or large numer of editors, none of them are "policy". Only policies are proposed, guidelines are simple followed if you agree with the underlying principles. Since ROWN is in its infant stages (and all other reasons) I repeat my request for you to withdraw your merge request. zen master T 20:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's let the merge proposal run its course. Carbonite | Talk 20:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's ok by me if you let a tainted merge proposal run its course, though it would make sense to withdraw it given the many differences between the two guidelines. zen master T 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• As stated earlier, the 0RR is idealistic and entirely not grounded in reality. People frequently make good-faith-but-ill-advised edits to add to an article. These must be reverted to improve article quality. Anybody who claims otherwise seriously needs to spend an hour on RC patrol, in order to get a clue what he's actually talking about. Radiant_>|< 22:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I, personally, disagree with merging this article. 0RR is an entirely different "guideline", and it is my opinion that it should remain such. --Blu Aardvark | 00:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of 0RR

I think Radiant may misunderstand the fundamental point of the 0RR guideline. Here he adds "The problem with this 'rule' is that it makes it impossible to get rid of good-faith-but-ill-advised edits, which are plentiful". The point of the 0RR guideline is to give fellow contributors the benefit of the doubt and include their information in addition to any information you want to add. I don't think there is a wikipedia policy that defines "ill-advised edits", what do you mean? The 0RR accounts for the possibility a fellow editors contribution may need re-wording and cleaning up, but the point is to ensure all information and viewpoints are retained. zen master T 23:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What's so bad about a revert?

I so no reason to have a rule against *individual* reverts. We should all promptly remove certain types of things, such as unverified information. Leaving potential misinformation out of respect for the contributor ignores WP:V. Whie we WP:AGF is a guideline, WP:V is a non-negotiable founding policy. Verifiability means we *don't* assume things to be true, just because somebody says they are. If you say something I doubt, and give no sources, and I can't find any, I'm entitled to revert you. Revert wars are harmful, but individual reverts are often beneficial. They force somebody to actually justify their change. Also, discouraging reverts would merely mean that people would find "imaginitive" means of doing reverts, by doing edits that accomplish the same result, but aren't technically reverts. --Rob 20:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, we shouldn't have a rule against reverts. This proposal wouldn't restrict reverts, but instead encourage editors to avoid reverts unless they're necessary to maintain the quality of an article. Vandalism, unverified information, and just plain terrible edits would qualify as "necessary" for being reverted. This proposal may eventually become a guideline, but never an official policy. The WP:3RR is the Misplaced Pages's only official policy on reverts and I believe it should stay that way. Carbonite | Talk 20:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The only problem is that the peopple most needing of being reverted will try to claim that this is a rule against reverts and use it to cause more problems. You should really try instead to make a guideline called Misplaced Pages:Don't make the edit in the first place unless it's necessary. I realize that goes against the whole be bold thing, but the vast majority of edits being made here are ill-advised, and reverting is the best way to handle them. It'd be different if the editors were limited to people with proven writing skills, undertanding of the purpose of an encyclopedia, and knowledge of the topics they edit, but since Misplaced Pages presumes that anyone and everyone can show up and make whatever change they want, any guideline trying to make it more difficult for people to undo these ill-conceived edits can only be a bad thing. DreamGuy 06:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No one is suggesting we keep bad changes. But reverts aren't the only way of fixing it. In the case of "just plain terrible edits" it may be possible to reword the edit, but keep some of it. In cases of unverified information, it may be possible to ask the user to check their facts, or add a {{fact}} flag. This guideline is about minimising the use of the ugly slap in the face that is a revert. Stevage 06:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposed policy. There are many instances where it doesn't make sense to keep an edit, and suggesting people simply reword things implies that all edits are inherently worthwhile. Not so. We're not a social club, we're an encyclopedia project. I'm as shy about revert wars as the next guy, but there are plenty of cases where I think reverts are essential, positive, and necessary. There is no way I would ever support anything like this policy. --Improv 01:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I oppose this proposed policy too. Gene Nygaard 15:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

We're in many respects a social club too. I've seen a fair number of problems caused purely and simply by an insensitive revert. Had the user reworded the bad edit, there would have been no problem. The revert itself - the feeling of "you thought my edit was completely and utterly worthless" caused many headaches, and careful discussion afterwards. That's what this policy is about. Reverting a crappy edit made by a newbie/anon who will never come back is one thing. Reverting a good-faith (but perhaps badly worded, unsourced etc) edit by a member of the community is rude, and if absolutely necessary should be accompanied with a personal explanation of why you're doing it. Personal feelings *do* matter, because otherwise they lead to arguments and emotional editing, which gets in the way of the primary goal, that of producing an encyclopaedia. Stevage 15:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that this is a proposed guideline, not a proposed policy. I think that's an important distinction because it's meant to essentially be a "best practices" guide rather than a mandatory rule. I agree with Improv that there certainly are many instances where an edit can't be kept and a revert is necessary. I've done RC patrol countless times and I don't think twice about reverting many of the edits I find. This proposal is meant to encourage editors (especially newbies) to think about whether an edit should be reverted or incorporated.

For example, instead of threatening an editor who's prone to reverts with the three-revert rule, you could say "Please, revert only when necessary." Since ROWN contains information on the 3RR, that would also be considered a warning should the editor continue to revert. Again, this proposal is meant to centralize various guidelines about reverts and provide another means to discourage revert wars. It absolutely doesn't mean that an editor can't revert if a revert is necessary. As always, editors are free to disergard (or edit) this guideline should they feel it doesn't suit them. Carbonite | Talk 16:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is more important. I stand by every reversion I have done. I don't think we should need to tiptoe around the fact that some edits are crap, nor should we feel bound to find a way to rephrase crap when the article was perfectly good before. Now, mind you, it would be polite not to use the word crap, but many edits are not worth keeping, and this guideline will make people shy about doing the right thing. It should not be instituted. --Improv 17:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

To make myself absolutely clear, I oppose it as a guideline as well. Note that the header does say "a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, process, or informational page". Gene Nygaard 17:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it does say "Revert only when necessary", not "don't revert at all". Dan100 (Talk) 10:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverting would only be necessary if the edit is vandalism right? If an edit is not vandalism then it has to in some way be beneficial to an article. zen master T 16:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You've obviously never done RC patrol. It often is absolutely necessary to revert an edit that isn't vandalism. What if someone adds this to the George W. Bush artcile: "George Bush live in big house and make laws. We study him in school." This doesn't meet the definition of simple vandalism, yet it would be instantly reverted since it's not beneficial in any way to the article. Unless we expand the definition of vandalism to include good faith (but worthless) edits, it's simply impossible to say that we should only revert vandalism. Carbonite | Talk 16:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I would classify that as testing which is vandalism, though we should be extra careful about not biting the newbies in that situation. Do you have any other examples? zen master T 17:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! Testing is not vandalism by any definition. Newbie tests are the first example listed in what vandalism is not. Vandalism is narrowly defined for a reason and expanding it so you can say "Only revert vandalism" is nonsensical. If you're looking for other examples, do RC patrol for about 20 minutes. Trust me, you'll never again say that only vandalism should be reverted. Carbonite | Talk 17:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Testing outside the sandbox is vandalism. Let's analyze this issue for the most common case, when an editor adds info, usually critical of the mainstream view, to an article by what rationale is that edit ever outright "reverted'? Citations may need to be added, text re-worded but the underlying information must have some value to the article. zen master T 17:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Testing (in or out of the sandbox) is not vandalism. You won't find a single policy or guideline or probably even a single other user that holds such a belief. In addition, criticism of a mainstream view is far from the most commonly reverted type of edit. I think you're demonstrating that you're rather out of touch with the reality of what gets reverted on Misplaced Pages. The number of just edits that have no benefit to an article (but aren't vandalism) is many times (probably several orders of magnitude more) than the number of edits critical of some mainstream view. I'm not going to fall into the trap of debating when you aren't even going to pay attention to what I wrote. Carbonite | Talk 17:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Only for Vandals

I only revert for blatant vandalism, otherwise I manually rollback only because it allows me to add an edit summary. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a difference between the two :-) Dan100 (Talk) 21:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it's pressing the button as opposed to going to an earlier version and pressing save. The only reason I do the latter is to add an edit summary. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, so what you meant to say was "I only rollback for blatant vandalism, otherwise I manually revert only because it allows me to add an edit summary." :-) Dan100 (Talk) 10:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

1RR redirect problem

In order to judge if it's a good idea to merge (instead of link) 1RR, I need to compare 1RR with ROWN. But instead of 1RR I am redirected to ROWN, without a link in sight! In view of the above objection by Dan100, this has the same effect as sabotage. Either undo the redirect, or add a link. Harald88 00:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

To help assure you that there's no sabotage here, let me point out that it was Dan100 who redirected 1RR to ROWN, after his concerns were addressed. Nearly 100% of the 1RR was merged into ROWN with the intention to centralize the different reverts "rules". If you're interested you can always view the history of the one-revert rule page (1RR was actually a shortcut, the page itself had been located at Misplaced Pages:One-revert rule). Note that certain parts of the 1RR made enough sense to integrate them into the larger ROWN proposal, so some of the text isn't located specifically in the one revert rule section. I hope this alleviates any concerns you may have had. Carbonite | Talk 00:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's clear - thanks Carbonite! Harald88 15:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)