Misplaced Pages talk:Revert only when necessary

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:35, 11 December 2020 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Revert only when necessary/Archive 2) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:35, 11 December 2020 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Revert only when necessary/Archive 2) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Misplaced Pages essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Misplaced Pages essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Misplaced Pages essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysTemplate:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysWikiProject Misplaced Pages essays
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Proposal: Nominate essay as a guideline

I want to nominate this essay as a guideline. Who's with me? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I am. The basic message of this essay is more deserving of being a guideline than any I've seen in a long time. Some material might need to be excluded because is written more like persuasion and explanation than guidance. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Not me. And that's for the same reasons that I and others rejected the proposal to elevate WP:BRD to a guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I support this. I find the undo function necesssary but very problematic as it diminishes tools like and most of all the most basic and most accessable Misplaced Pages tool the talk page. It destroys discussion outside of the established users. It makes possible content often invisible. Reasons for undoing are too often problems with language or form, and not because of unresolveable issues. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I would support it too. Too often, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater from a good faith edit. Inevitably there would have be some changes to fit it into the guideline format. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Nah. Honestly much of this essay strikes me as naive. Edits that may be good faith, yet misguided and unsalvageable, are very common. We don't do such people a favor by keeping poor additions, and certainly not our readers. And what's also common is people coming on here to promote personal or fringe ideas. We should not try to keep some of such content and create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also, changes are scrutinized the most when they've just been done. Better to uproot poor content while it's new and we're examining it than let it sit around misleading people for possibly many years. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, though it'll need some rewriting to be in guideline language not essay language. The place for such a proposal is probably WP:VPPOL, with notice at WP:VPPRO, WP:CENT, and some other good places, like WT:POLICY, WT:EDITING. In response to Crossroads's objection: misguided and unsalvageable content, including WP:FRINGE and WP:PROMO material, would surely qualify as "necessary" to revert. Lots of stuff is not, including material that passes WP:V (verifiable but doesn't have a citation yet), and my personal peeve: mass-revert of 20 cleanup changes to get at one thing you disagree with (e.g. undoing 19 citation repairs because someone also inserted a serial comma in that editing pass and you hate serial commas). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the essay allows reverts in the scenarios Crossroads describes. Particularly where it says reverting is appropriate if "the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement." Anywikiuser (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I know that the essay does allow for reverting in such scenarios, but it still pushes too hard for trying to save it. It states: It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit. On average, this will result in more bad content being preserved. Especially because if editors are discouraged from reverting poor additions, rather than going through the effort to comb through them, they will be tempted to just save it all. As for mass reverting good edits to get at a bad one, I haven't seen much of that, which I agree is bad. What I have seen often is bad content that ends up deleted, and when its origin is investigated, it was added by a user with an obvious agenda, and it stuck around for years because people decided at the time to leave it be. As for me, I myself do save the good parts of mixed quality edits, as do most editors I've interacted with. So, this essay is unnecessary as a guideline, as it would take us in the wrong direction. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't single out bias and undue weight as revert-worthy

I removed

 Edits that introduce bias or undue weight  should be reverted until consensus is built.

because it followed,

 ... a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement.

and I don't see any reason that bias and undue weight need to be called out specially. They are just two of many, many problems in an article that need to be corrected, and editors should use the same standards in deciding with a reversion is appropriate as with any of the others: incorrect facts, non-notable material, unreadable language, bad grammar, etc. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with that deletion. Introducing bias into an article doesn't necessarily make it clearly worse. Another editor might agree with the tendentious edit or believe that it clarifies something. I think the wording should be restored. -Jordgette 17:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent addition -- about not edit reverting an edit one believes is an improvement.

Regarding this addition by WhatamIdoing? I reverted, stating, "I don't agree with this. It's been discussed before, I think including at the BRD talk page. Editors revert to the status quo for discussion all the time. While an editor might think an edit is an improvement, they may also know that it's going to be controversial or an issue in some way and want to forestall that by first discussing it. If the addition is truly no problem, the talk page will resolve that." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to Slow Down Impulsive Reverts

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

If my experience is anything to go by, most reverts do not follow the guidelines on this page. I've been reverted without inadequate explanation or no explanation at all. When I make changes, designed to make the text clear or less misleading, I might be reverted by somebody who likes the old version better. I've even been reverted for failing to provide a citation.

I do realize that this page is an essay, not policy. But it would still be helpful if reverters were forced to consider these ideas. In any case, reversion needs to be a lot less impulsive.

To accomplish this, I propose these software changes:

Instead of simply telling editors that revert comments are required, refuse to accept reverts without one.
Provide a message about limiting use of reverts, with links to WP:OWN and/or WP:RV.
Force the editor to acknowledge these issues by checking a box to indicate that they're sure that reversion, instead of editing or discussion, is the right thing to do. Admins would be exempt, to make their vandalism cleanup less onerous.

Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose in strongest possible terms. While impulsive reverts are bad, WP:BRD requires that people be willing to revert freely; boldness is only possible when objections can be easily lodged and WP:BOLD editing slowed down for discussion without having to jump through hoops or red tape. While certainly reverts ought to have edit summaries, so should all other edits; singling out reverts here is inappropriate. And the checkbox idea in particular is a wretched idea that would make vandalism-patrolling more onerous for the sake of pointless, poorly-considered time-wasting that would do absolutely nothing to slow the people it is aimed at. --Aquillion (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Bold editing is a good thing. "Bold" ("obnoxious" is a better word) reverts discourage bold editing.
Indeed, objections should be easily lodged. But a revert of a good-faith edit is not "lodging an objection." Especially when the revert is made with no explanation.
Taking a fraction of a second to check a box is hardly "jumping through hoops." And making people think about what they're doing is often effective.
I agree, edit summaries should be mandatory. But that's beyond the scope of this RFC.
If you're doing vandalism patrolling, maybe you should be an admin?Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories: