4 ms·

I think one of the last straws for me before I quit trying to help is when I "lost" some disputed edit (and the page was subsequently locked) because the origin

I think one of the last straws for me before I quit trying to help is when I "lost" some disputed edit (and the page was subsequently locked) because the original author provided an external citation for their claim. The problem was, if you actually go read the content being cited, it did not at all conclude what the page author was asserting it did. In fact, it concluded the opposite. So the citation was "real" but the way it was being used with the implication that it supported the author's position was pure misinformation. I tried to point this out and petitioned to unlock the page, but I was told that "consensus has been reached, and edit warring will not be tolerated" ...

TZubiri 4mo ago
Oh, it does seem like you got way farther than just editing something without a source. It's not easy to make a contended edit, especially against a more experienced editor. Here's a few tips: 1- Don't focus so much on the edit, but focus on the discussion page. As mentioned, edit warring is a no-no. The core of edit warring is the 3RV rule, so if you must discuss through edits, space them out over time to avoid 3RV over 24 hours. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_thr...) The rule is biased towards change, so whoever makes the first edit, will hold the advantage in terms of punitive action. However, you may invoke a request for someone else to revert to the last stable version. 2- In general there is a lot of policy to read, but that goes for any tool worth using no? And it's what provides some sort of stability to the whole project. Wikipedia is a computer system like any other, but some code may be enforced by humans (bureocrats). You just have to learn the code if you want to edit, the expectation that it would be easy to edit wikipedia was actually true in the begginning, but as it grows larger, it will prioritize stability over growth and make editing harder. Also, you can see my unpublished essay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TZubiri/sandbox#Wikipedia%20conflicts%20as%20chess%20matches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TZubiri/sandbox#Wikipedia... It's outdated, I'd have to clarify on the punitive offensive bias and the modern content defensive bias. At the time I didn't have a clear understanding of the RVV (or it may have been different). But the idea of a slower, edit based discussion is there. 3- Tags are a powerful tool, as powerful as policies and guidelines. They are much more succint, and do not require so much effort on your part. Consider the WP:FV tag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Tagging%20a%20sentence,%20section,%20or%20article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Taggin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Failed_verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Failed_verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_failed_verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_fai... If you just apply the tag (or ask someone else to apply the tag), you expend almost 0 effort, but are backed by a custom so big and common that it merited the creation of a tag. No need to link to policy, its presence is self evident and self explanatory. It also doesn't delete the content, and doesn't count as a reversal, it progresses the state of the article, if it goes uncontested for a couple of days, you can then proceed with removal much more safely. Even if it doesn't, it's not a bad result if someone makes a claim and it has a {{failed verification}} tag, the existence of their position is clarified, but it is weakened, which is in line with the WP policy of Documenting the controversy and letting the facts speak for themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Let_the_facts_speak_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_%22teach_the_controversy%22#Instead,%20neutrally%20document%20the%20conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_%22teach_the... Feel free to ask for help in my talk page when editing a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TZubiri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TZubiri Or better yet, publish an edit request, and tag me or notify me in my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_Request_Wizard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_Request_Wizard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests 4 Finally, policy wise, it's common for sources to be used to advanced views not explicit in them, this constitutes original research, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...
- postflopclarity 4mo ago
  or I could just do something better with my time :/ so much effort all to fix what should be a clear and objective inaccuracy

TZubiri 4mo ago

Oh, it does seem like you got way farther than just editing something without a source. It's not easy to make a contended edit, especially against a more experienced editor. Here's a few tips: 1- Don't focus so much on the edit, but focus on the discussion page. As mentioned, edit warring is a no-no. The core of edit warring is the 3RV rule, so if you must discuss through edits, space them out over time to avoid 3RV over 24 hours. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_thr...) The rule is biased towards change, so whoever makes the first edit, will hold the advantage in terms of punitive action. However, you may invoke a request for someone else to revert to the last stable version. 2- In general there is a lot of policy to read, but that goes for any tool worth using no? And it's what provides some sort of stability to the whole project. Wikipedia is a computer system like any other, but some code may be enforced by humans (bureocrats). You just have to learn the code if you want to edit, the expectation that it would be easy to edit wikipedia was actually true in the begginning, but as it grows larger, it will prioritize stability over growth and make editing harder. Also, you can see my unpublished essay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TZubiri/sandbox#Wikipedia%20conflicts%20as%20chess%20matches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TZubiri/sandbox#Wikipedia... It's outdated, I'd have to clarify on the punitive offensive bias and the modern content defensive bias. At the time I didn't have a clear understanding of the RVV (or it may have been different). But the idea of a slower, edit based discussion is there. 3- Tags are a powerful tool, as powerful as policies and guidelines. They are much more succint, and do not require so much effort on your part. Consider the WP:FV tag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Tagging%20a%20sentence,%20section,%20or%20article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Taggin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Failed_verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Failed_verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_failed_verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_fai... If you just apply the tag (or ask someone else to apply the tag), you expend almost 0 effort, but are backed by a custom so big and common that it merited the creation of a tag. No need to link to policy, its presence is self evident and self explanatory. It also doesn't delete the content, and doesn't count as a reversal, it progresses the state of the article, if it goes uncontested for a couple of days, you can then proceed with removal much more safely. Even if it doesn't, it's not a bad result if someone makes a claim and it has a {{failed verification}} tag, the existence of their position is clarified, but it is weakened, which is in line with the WP policy of Documenting the controversy and letting the facts speak for themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Let_the_facts_speak_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_%22teach_the_controversy%22#Instead,%20neutrally%20document%20the%20conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_%22teach_the... Feel free to ask for help in my talk page when editing a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TZubiri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TZubiri Or better yet, publish an edit request, and tag me or notify me in my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_Request_Wizard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_Request_Wizard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests 4 Finally, policy wise, it's common for sources to be used to advanced views not explicit in them, this constitutes original research, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...

postflopclarity 4mo ago
or I could just do something better with my time :/ so much effort all to fix what should be a clear and objective inaccuracy