Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Hmmm. Having just discovered this essay, I consider it incorrect. Blanking sections is potentially justified under two policies: WP:BOLD and WP:IAR (and sometimes a third, WP:BLP). While it's not a great approach to editing, I would say that if you see a section which is seriously problematic (beyond your ability to edit it into accordance with our policies), blanking it is better than doing nothing. If someone else reverts and restores the section, no harm done (and then you should take it up with them); if not, presumably other editors agreed with your decision to remove it (see WP:Silence and consensus). Bold action like that is how most progress on Wikipedia gets made (see WP:BRD). Discussing a potential removal first is preferable, but not always necessary.
Additionally, I have to object to the suggestion that blanking part of an article is equivalent to deleting it (or nominating it for deletion). The major difference is that blanking is easily reversible by anybody, whereas deletion is not. For that reason, blanking is far less serious than deletion, and it is not necessary to always inform an editor before you remove their edits from an article.
Finally, I just want to make the point that an action taken in good faith with the intention of improving the encyclopaedia is not vandalism, although if it is not adequately explained it may well appear as such to others. Robofish ( talk) 00:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
(emphasis added). Thus, if the section consists exclusively of such material, it will probably be blanked. Bk314159 ( talk) 00:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced
The result of the move request was: moved to Wikipedia:Blanking sections sometimes violates policies per the suggestion of BarrelProof. ( non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk- contribs 03:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Blanking sections violates many policies → Wikipedia:Blanking sections may violate several policies – There are circumstances where section blanking is perfectly legitimate. Per WP:V, unsourced content that needs a source may be removed. JFH ( talk) 19:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Hmmm. Having just discovered this essay, I consider it incorrect. Blanking sections is potentially justified under two policies: WP:BOLD and WP:IAR (and sometimes a third, WP:BLP). While it's not a great approach to editing, I would say that if you see a section which is seriously problematic (beyond your ability to edit it into accordance with our policies), blanking it is better than doing nothing. If someone else reverts and restores the section, no harm done (and then you should take it up with them); if not, presumably other editors agreed with your decision to remove it (see WP:Silence and consensus). Bold action like that is how most progress on Wikipedia gets made (see WP:BRD). Discussing a potential removal first is preferable, but not always necessary.
Additionally, I have to object to the suggestion that blanking part of an article is equivalent to deleting it (or nominating it for deletion). The major difference is that blanking is easily reversible by anybody, whereas deletion is not. For that reason, blanking is far less serious than deletion, and it is not necessary to always inform an editor before you remove their edits from an article.
Finally, I just want to make the point that an action taken in good faith with the intention of improving the encyclopaedia is not vandalism, although if it is not adequately explained it may well appear as such to others. Robofish ( talk) 00:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
(emphasis added). Thus, if the section consists exclusively of such material, it will probably be blanked. Bk314159 ( talk) 00:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced
The result of the move request was: moved to Wikipedia:Blanking sections sometimes violates policies per the suggestion of BarrelProof. ( non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk- contribs 03:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Blanking sections violates many policies → Wikipedia:Blanking sections may violate several policies – There are circumstances where section blanking is perfectly legitimate. Per WP:V, unsourced content that needs a source may be removed. JFH ( talk) 19:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)