This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doniago (talk | contribs) at 18:20, 11 December 2024 (Reverted edits by 175.157.228.39 (talk) to last version by SuperMarioMan No reply provided.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:20, 11 December 2024 by Doniago (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 175.157.228.39 (talk) to last version by SuperMarioMan No reply provided.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Editing policy page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages. |
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 1 Feb 2010. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
Notice of an RFC that may affect this policy
An RFC proposing to move WP:MASSCREATE out of WP:Bot policy has been started at WT:Bot policy#RFC: Sever WP:MASSCREATE from WP:BOTPOL. One of the options suggested for its new location is to move WP:MASSCREATE into this policy. Other options are a standalone policy page, or some other policy page. Please comment there if interested. Anomie⚔ 20:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
"Conservative" is being misused to describe far right and nationalist views.
When attempting to correct descriptions of nationalist far right groups, currently described as "conservative" Chris X deletes these changes. This wrong! Pjtawney (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is not the place to seek help with this issue. See the "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Editing policy page" box at the top of this page for suggestions regarding where you should go for assistance. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
We shouldn't revert edits just because they're unsourced right?
This is a bit of a mistake I've made in my Huggle sessions. Most people who add unsourced material that sounds true are completely new to Misplaced Pages. Usually, it's not only true, but the source is out there. Looking for a reliable source (and knowing which RS guideline applies) will take effort most people are unwilling to put in. People who add unsourced material are generally here to build an encyclopedia, they're just bold. (Of course, there's the defamation issue, but although you should revert unsourced claims on BLPs you should paste them somewhere first so you can research them.) T3h 1337 b0y 02:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I typically revert newly added unsourced edits where I'm not 100% sure they're true and leave a note for the editor who added the information, on the grounds that if they added the information to begin with, then they're probably most qualified to know from where they found the information. DonIago (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- In my experience, most instances of editors making totally unsourced additions to articles will fall under one of the following scenarios:
- The addition boils down to a series of claims with dubious verifiability
- The added material is very likely to be undue within the article.
- After being reverted, the material is readded in a constructive manner that includes viable inline citations
- I think there's a very real difference in net editor-work required to improve the encyclopedia between adopting a GIGO stance that insists on new iterative additions being adequately cited, and going out of one's way to remove existing uncited but plausibly WP:V material of unknown provenance—which often makes it harder for later editors to fill in the gaps of substance that are often created. Remsense ‥ 论 07:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Repeating my wish for a tool that would display each of the major additions throughout an article's history that have since been removed. I would make tough choices with much less dread if I knew it was easier for others to see and evaluate what is no longer in an article if they so choose. Remsense ‥ 论 08:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- My approach is similar to Doniago's. If it seems like a plausible and useful addition, I'll do a quick search to see if I can add a source myself (and sometimes succeed). I don't know about Huggle, but Twinkle lets you select Reverted good-faith edits, which is a bit gentler. Schazjmd (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Right. One alternative at WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is tagging. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll tag if the content isn't newly added (i.e. if it's a stable part of the article), but in the majority of instances where I've tagged, the upshot is that a couple of months later I'll remove the still-unsourced content. That said, I've been editing long enough that 'majority of instances' allows for a fair number of instances where citations were subsequently added. DonIago (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- The post that started this conversation talks about edits that are "not only true, but the source is out there." Why remove the still-unsourced content? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is "new editors should be strongly encouraged to always cite their contributions, as to not to inherently create more work someone else has to do" an acceptable answer? Pragmatically, I think it is. (While tagging may be encouragement, reversion is clearly stronger.) Secondly, in the grand scheme of things the class of clearly V statements is actually pretty small, and I generally don't trust myself to produce verifiable prose if I'm not looking at a source. Plus, there's also the DUE issue. Remsense ‥ 论 02:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I firmly reject treating reversion like a "bite" in itself: I am putting the page into a better state than it was presently in, and there is nothing to apologize for in that as long as my reasons are adequately communicated—in this case adequately for an editor still very much getting the hang of things. Remsense ‥ 论 05:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reject all you want, but it's example 1 at Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers#How to avoid being a "biter". - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- What provides more benefit to a new editor, though? Fixing their edit for them, which they may not even notice, or reverting their edit and bringing Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies to their attention so that they (ideally) won't contine to add unsourced material and possibly be reverted in a less gracious manner? DonIago (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- These are not the only two options. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say they were...but if you're going to note that there's other options, perhaps you could bring them up? DonIago (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Example 1 at BITE says:
- Improve, don't remove. If something doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's standards, try to fix the problem rather than just remove what's broken. (Nothing stops new contributors and regulars from coming back like having all their hard work end up in the bit bucket.)
- If you click on the "fix the problem" link you'll find a list. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- None of that is clearly intended to apply to new edits though. As I've said, I treat unsourced content differently if it isn't new to the article. DonIago (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Example 1 at BITE says:
- I didn't say they were...but if you're going to note that there's other options, perhaps you could bring them up? DonIago (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- These are not the only two options. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- What provides more benefit to a new editor, though? Fixing their edit for them, which they may not even notice, or reverting their edit and bringing Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies to their attention so that they (ideally) won't contine to add unsourced material and possibly be reverted in a less gracious manner? DonIago (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reject all you want, but it's example 1 at Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers#How to avoid being a "biter". - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I firmly reject treating reversion like a "bite" in itself: I am putting the page into a better state than it was presently in, and there is nothing to apologize for in that as long as my reasons are adequately communicated—in this case adequately for an editor still very much getting the hang of things. Remsense ‥ 论 05:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- As I said in my initial message in this thread, if something is 100% true and I'm 100% sure a source is out there then I might leave it alone. But that's a rare occurrence. I'd also note that it's almost always more expedient to just add a source when content is challenged than it is to argue about whether a source is needed, and very often when editors do question the need for a source I find myself questioning whether they're making that argument because they don't themselves believe that a source exists. Put simply, if the editor arguing for inclusion of content isn't willing or able to provide a source (or at least demonstrate that they want to collaborate to find one), then I feel that punches a large hole in any arguments that it's appropriate to include the content. DonIago (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Right, an editor who is challenged has the obligation to produce an RS. But how should you challenge? Reverting from the get-go is easy, fun, and likely to cause hurt feelings on the part of the reverted (especially if they're a newbie). All I'm asking is that editors consider alternatives first. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, if you're new and you're going to have your feelings hurt because someone reverted you while telling you relatively gently that you need to provide a source (and again, this shouldn't be a significant burden), then I think you're in for a rude awakening if you continue to edit in any meaningful capacity. There's a lot of policies and guidelines on Misplaced Pages that it's easy to fall afoul of (frankly I'd rather have a single sentence reverted because I didn't provide a source than have the five hundred words I added to a film's plot summary reverted per WP:FILMPLOT), and I think new editors should expect that they might accidentally run into some of those P&Gs. Similarly, anyone who sticks around long enough is, unfortunately, probably going to run into editors who will be a lot more rude than an editor who gives someone a Level 1 advisory for having added unsourced content. DonIago (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, a first revert that is accompanied by a relatively gentle explanation is less likely to scare off a newbie than one that is a lot more rude. But I believe the point of the BITE essay is that someone whose very first edit is reverted is not likely to stick around at all regardless of the tone of the explanation. You may disagree - or you may feel that an editor who cannot handle a "gentle" revert of their very first edit is too thin-skinned and it is best to scare them off from the get-go. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, if you're new and you're going to have your feelings hurt because someone reverted you while telling you relatively gently that you need to provide a source (and again, this shouldn't be a significant burden), then I think you're in for a rude awakening if you continue to edit in any meaningful capacity. There's a lot of policies and guidelines on Misplaced Pages that it's easy to fall afoul of (frankly I'd rather have a single sentence reverted because I didn't provide a source than have the five hundred words I added to a film's plot summary reverted per WP:FILMPLOT), and I think new editors should expect that they might accidentally run into some of those P&Gs. Similarly, anyone who sticks around long enough is, unfortunately, probably going to run into editors who will be a lot more rude than an editor who gives someone a Level 1 advisory for having added unsourced content. DonIago (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Right, an editor who is challenged has the obligation to produce an RS. But how should you challenge? Reverting from the get-go is easy, fun, and likely to cause hurt feelings on the part of the reverted (especially if they're a newbie). All I'm asking is that editors consider alternatives first. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is "new editors should be strongly encouraged to always cite their contributions, as to not to inherently create more work someone else has to do" an acceptable answer? Pragmatically, I think it is. (While tagging may be encouragement, reversion is clearly stronger.) Secondly, in the grand scheme of things the class of clearly V statements is actually pretty small, and I generally don't trust myself to produce verifiable prose if I'm not looking at a source. Plus, there's also the DUE issue. Remsense ‥ 论 02:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- The post that started this conversation talks about edits that are "not only true, but the source is out there." Why remove the still-unsourced content? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll tag if the content isn't newly added (i.e. if it's a stable part of the article), but in the majority of instances where I've tagged, the upshot is that a couple of months later I'll remove the still-unsourced content. That said, I've been editing long enough that 'majority of instances' allows for a fair number of instances where citations were subsequently added. DonIago (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)