Misplaced Pages

talk:Revert only when necessary - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zen-master (talk | contribs) at 19:54, 20 December 2005 (→Differences between 0RR and ROWN). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:54, 20 December 2005 by Zen-master (talk | contribs) (→Differences between 0RR and ROWN)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)
    • 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)

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)
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)