Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Peacedove.svg The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.
WikiProject Policy and Guidelines
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Policy and Guidelines WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 

A proposal for a "better" intro paragraph[edit]

Proposal[edit]

the current version of the lead article paragraph:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.

should be changed to:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Edit warring is unconstructive and unsuitable for putting an article into a stable state. In this context, stability is wikipedia's primary editing goal. Wikipedia intentionally does not distinguish, does not attempt to distinguish between inferior or superior, factually correct or incorrect article states, put differently you should abstain from repeated reverts, even if you "know" that your revert would improve the article's factual consistency, even if your "adversary" was unable to refute, or did not even bother to engage with your arguments on the TALK page: use the constructive alternative mediation procedures open to you, instead.

Rationale[edit]

Instead of indicating the problems of the current version in detail I produced a completely "alternative" version, which for my understanding better "explains" what is really going on, and how "editing warring" is just as much a consequence of policy decisions, as it is of the intransigence or "inconsensuality" of "evil", "incorrigible", "pubescent" editors.

Quessler (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia intentionally does not distinguish, does not attempt to distinguish between... factually correct or incorrect article states..." This is plainly incorrect as deliberately adding incorrect info is treated as vandalism. The rest of the wording does not seem to be an improvement either with awkward phrasings and dubious assertions (stability is wikipedia's primary editing goal). --NeilN talk to me 14:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
please check your proposition against the following "current", "correct" definition of vandalism

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism.

Why is your "interpretation":

deliberately adding incorrect info

"unintentionally" not part of the definition?
How do you prove intent?

Quessler (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We are not required to "prove" anything. We can use our common sense. --NeilN talk to me 15:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
NeilN not surprisingly, you did not answer the question, why

deliberately adding incorrect info

is not part of the "official" definition of vandalism?
Do you want me to extend the current definition of "vandalism" by adding your clarification? Quessler (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@Quessler: It's already there: Wikipedia:Vandalism#Hoaxing_vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 19:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
is

hoax information

equivalent to

incorrect info?

it is a subset of "incorrect info", "trivially obvious" incorrect info,

"non-trivially" incorrect info is not included in current wikipedia practice or current definitions
of vandalism, or the concept of edit warring. So my statement:

Wikipedia intentionally does not distinguish, does not attempt to distinguish between inferior or superior, factually correct or incorrect article states,

is correct,
MrX, NeilN: it seems to be surprisingly difficult, however, for wikipedians to accept that "fact". Quessler (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Quessler, "Deliberately adding falsities to articles, particularly to biographies of living people, with hoax information is considered vandalism" is pretty clear. I think at this point you have to realize there's no support for your proposed changes. --NeilN talk to me 20:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
If I understand you, NeilN, right, according to you

one can revert an article item as often as one likes, and will never be blocked as long as the version one reverts to is the one factually correct.

and this describes the current philosophy, policy of wikipedia? Quessler (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Quessler: I'm sorry, but I also don't see this as an improvement. Stability is not really a goal in an wiki encyclopedia that literally anyone can edit, at any time. One of the principles of Wikipedia is that it is a work in progress and that we desire incremental improvement. Also, I'm sorry, but your proposed wording is ungrammatical.- MrX 15:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the effort, my text can certainly be improved upon. Quessler (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Would you agree that the term "ungrammatical" with the examples given could be considered slightly inappropriate as no underlying english language rules seem to have been violated, unless, of course, you intentionally used the term as a hyberbolic equivalent of "stylistically dubious"? Quessler (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
MrX: please correct, if your time allows, the ungrammaticality of my wording. Quessler (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The fourth and fifth sentences are run-on sentences. The word 'abstain' should be 'refrain'. - MrX 19:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
MrX: Why is a change between two article paragraph versions every hour a problem for an "anyone can edit" wikipedia? Quessler (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you are referring to. I never said anything about "every hour".- MrX 19:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You said

Stability is not really a goal in an wiki encyclopedia

so if text stability is not really an issue, why is

a change between two article paragraph versions every hour, (let's assume for clarification: made by two editors alternately).

a problem? Quessler (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where that second quote comes from or its context, so I can't answer your question.- MrX 20:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
you do not know where the quote

a change between two article paragraph versions every hour, (let's assume for clarification: made by two editors alternately).

comes from? it is "simply" my interpretation of your position, statement:

Stability is not really a goal in an wiki encyclopedia that literally anyone can edit, at any time.

"if stability is not really a goal", why are occurrences currently called "edit warring", why are repeated reverts a "problem"? Quessler (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Repeated reverts are a problem not because the article keeps bouncing back and forth between one state and another — it's unlikely many readers even notice that — but because they are disruptive and counterproductive. It's impossible to have a meaningful and productive discussion, involving a number of editors, in edit summaries. ―Mandruss  00:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)