4 ms·

If you disagree with the editor, you can revert their reversions with justifications and bring it to attention on the talk page, though.

DanBC 10y ago
But that's the point. Here we're talking about a good edit. If someone makes a good edit they shouldn't need to defend it - other editors should see it's good and defend it themselves. By asking people to defend their edits on the talk page you're just saying that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody with enough time can edit.
- cooper12 10y ago
  I think its a naive view to expect two or more people to work on something without conflicts. How do these get solved in real life? Do people just keep pushing and pulling until one side cedes? Perhaps, but the more effective and optimal solution is to actually discuss it instead of creating a tug-of-war. [0] This way the results reflect a consensus, even if its a compromise, and this way Wikipedia can be host to multiple opinions. There's a really good reason every article is paired with a talk page. Just because it's called "The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit", it doesn't mean that its obligated to take anyones edits or that all that hard work won't be entirely rewritten in the future. [1][2] Lastly, what makes a "good edit". I've seen someone write paragraphs for a film on their personal interpretations of the protagonist's feelings. No doubt they thought this was essential information for someone to understand the film, but this went completely against Wikipedia's rule prohibiting original research. [3] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus... [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_requir... [2]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Edit: I said nothing about time in my comment, but addressed conflict resolution and the parent's comment about good edits. If taking the time and effort to discuss something is too much for you, maybe it's better that you don't try to work on a collaborative encyclopedia project.
  - eprime 10y ago
    So it appears to confirm that editing a new wikipedia article means expending lots of time, making long and well though out difficult decisions and spending lots in ones personal life. Without an investment of time and effort to understand the culture and rules, it appears (as the anecdotes in this thread suggest) new editors get discouraged and existing editors become more secure.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  Not just that, but you will often be summarily blocked from editing by a determined and experienced editor, no matter how good your edit. Admins now largely make their decisions without much consideration for the issue that is in dispute. It's actually often worse than this: often they claim you are violating even core policies, but they have completely not understood the policy on which they base their claim, and sometimes they even show little evidence they have read the policy at all! The great irony of all if this is that the policy and guidelines are solid. If they were actually followed then I don't think there would be much of a problem. But if you can be blocked indefinitely for not violating a policy but for being accused of violating a core policy alone, regardless of the basis of the accusation - well, then it's hardly worthwhile making the necessary effort to contribute quality material that conforms to Wikipedia norms and requirements!
  - sambe 10y ago
    I've seen this in almost every online community I've been part of. Online moderation seems to attract a certain kind of person: very picky but with some logical flaws, lack of common sense, relatively poor social skills. Eventually the bad money drives out the good. Usually they act in a way that isn't technically wrong (or borderline) but still cause damage. Strange thing is that I'd expect Wikipedia to be one of the exceptions. HN and Reddit are: the quality goes down a bit with more low quality contributions, downvote-disagree etc. as the community expands. But overall pretty stable. I always thought this was due to size: at some point there are enough people "in power" that a reasonable number will see the bigger picture. Haven't had enough bad Wikipedia experiences to comment, but find it surprising.
Tomte 10y ago
I did.what difference does it make? The editor claims "vandalism", reverts it and noone else ever sees it or cares. Simple conflict of interest and the feeling of "owning" an article.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  Or if not vandalism, you are accused of violating some other policy the accuser doesn't understand. Or uses the catch all violation that can get you blocked indefinitely: you violated WP:BLP, even when you have not.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    The policy seems to discourage that kind of abuse[1][2]. Unfortunately, the actual moderation system often fails to comply with stated policy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Crying_"BLP!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Crying_"BLP!" [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_zealot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_zealot
    - chris_wot 10y ago
      Ha, I didn't know these existed. They don't seem to be followed if my experience is any guide.

DanBC 10y ago

But that's the point. Here we're talking about a good edit. If someone makes a good edit they shouldn't need to defend it - other editors should see it's good and defend it themselves. By asking people to defend their edits on the talk page you're just saying that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody with enough time can edit.

cooper12 10y ago
I think its a naive view to expect two or more people to work on something without conflicts. How do these get solved in real life? Do people just keep pushing and pulling until one side cedes? Perhaps, but the more effective and optimal solution is to actually discuss it instead of creating a tug-of-war. [0] This way the results reflect a consensus, even if its a compromise, and this way Wikipedia can be host to multiple opinions. There's a really good reason every article is paired with a talk page. Just because it's called "The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit", it doesn't mean that its obligated to take anyones edits or that all that hard work won't be entirely rewritten in the future. [1][2] Lastly, what makes a "good edit". I've seen someone write paragraphs for a film on their personal interpretations of the protagonist's feelings. No doubt they thought this was essential information for someone to understand the film, but this went completely against Wikipedia's rule prohibiting original research. [3] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus... [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_requir... [2]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Edit: I said nothing about time in my comment, but addressed conflict resolution and the parent's comment about good edits. If taking the time and effort to discuss something is too much for you, maybe it's better that you don't try to work on a collaborative encyclopedia project.
- eprime 10y ago
  So it appears to confirm that editing a new wikipedia article means expending lots of time, making long and well though out difficult decisions and spending lots in ones personal life. Without an investment of time and effort to understand the culture and rules, it appears (as the anecdotes in this thread suggest) new editors get discouraged and existing editors become more secure.
chris_wot 10y ago
Not just that, but you will often be summarily blocked from editing by a determined and experienced editor, no matter how good your edit. Admins now largely make their decisions without much consideration for the issue that is in dispute. It's actually often worse than this: often they claim you are violating even core policies, but they have completely not understood the policy on which they base their claim, and sometimes they even show little evidence they have read the policy at all! The great irony of all if this is that the policy and guidelines are solid. If they were actually followed then I don't think there would be much of a problem. But if you can be blocked indefinitely for not violating a policy but for being accused of violating a core policy alone, regardless of the basis of the accusation - well, then it's hardly worthwhile making the necessary effort to contribute quality material that conforms to Wikipedia norms and requirements!
- sambe 10y ago
  I've seen this in almost every online community I've been part of. Online moderation seems to attract a certain kind of person: very picky but with some logical flaws, lack of common sense, relatively poor social skills. Eventually the bad money drives out the good. Usually they act in a way that isn't technically wrong (or borderline) but still cause damage. Strange thing is that I'd expect Wikipedia to be one of the exceptions. HN and Reddit are: the quality goes down a bit with more low quality contributions, downvote-disagree etc. as the community expands. But overall pretty stable. I always thought this was due to size: at some point there are enough people "in power" that a reasonable number will see the bigger picture. Haven't had enough bad Wikipedia experiences to comment, but find it surprising.

Tomte 10y ago

I did.what difference does it make? The editor claims "vandalism", reverts it and noone else ever sees it or cares. Simple conflict of interest and the feeling of "owning" an article.

chris_wot 10y ago
Or if not vandalism, you are accused of violating some other policy the accuser doesn't understand. Or uses the catch all violation that can get you blocked indefinitely: you violated WP:BLP, even when you have not.
- icebraining 10y ago
  The policy seems to discourage that kind of abuse[1][2]. Unfortunately, the actual moderation system often fails to comply with stated policy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Crying_"BLP!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Crying_"BLP!" [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_zealot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_zealot
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    Ha, I didn't know these existed. They don't seem to be followed if my experience is any guide.