User talk:Heimstern/Editwarring

Your thoughts on this are interesting.

I'm just wondering why you feel blocking is the right way. An edit war could easily arise between a good, knowledgeable editor and a nincompoop. By blocking, aren't you penalising the good editor just as much as the nincompoop? And blocking is something that can only be taken personally. Someone who is blocked is likely to become extremely upset, which could lead to the loss of good editors. (The existence of sockpuppets suggests that the ones most likely to be upset by a ban are the good editors, not the nincompoops, who just keep coming back).

Just my two cents.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't done yet. I haven't really explained my thoughts on blocking yet. This document is likely to be ever-evolving, too, so don't expect things to stay absolutely the same over time. Thanks for reading! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring is fundamentally at odds with the idea of Wikipedia - that's not really true. The idea of Wikipedia is fundamentally about building a neutral point of view encyclopedia. Preventing edit warring is - mostly - just a means to that end. If a NPOV encyclopedia could be build with edit wars, then why not? Of course 9 times out of 10 edit warring disrupts the process that leads to a NPOV encyclopedia. But sometimes, edit warring is just how people work out their disagreements - nothing makes you go out and get some reliable sources like getting reverted a few times.

The reason why edit warring is seen as 'teh worst thing evah' on Wikipedia is simply because 1) it annoys admins and creates work for them to do and 2) it's one of the few policy areas with a pretty clearly defined "border" - the 3RR rule - which makes it easy for admins to take actions (in other policy areas, such as civility, BLP, and especially NPOV admins are forced to interpret and take sides which can cause mucho controversy which isn't good for one's Wiki-career). But the stress that is put on preventing edit warring on Wikipedia (both in admin discussions and in the usual mutual accusations that editors fling at each other) is way out of proportion with the damage that it actually causes. POV-pushing and (some forms of) incivility are way worse of a problem.radek (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I agree with rest of your essay.radek (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason edit warring is antitethical to WP hopes is that it shows article content being controlled by who shouts the loudest and longest, not who brings the best arguments.TCO (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]