![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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)
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.
deliberately adding incorrect info
Quessler ( talk) 14:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
deliberately adding incorrect info
hoax information
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,
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.
Stability is not really a goal in an wiki encyclopedia
a change between two article paragraph versions every hour, (let's assume for clarification: made by two editors alternately).
a change between two article paragraph versions every hour, (let's assume for clarification: made by two editors alternately).
Stability is not really a goal in an wiki encyclopedia that literally anyone can edit, at any time.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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)
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.
deliberately adding incorrect info
Quessler ( talk) 14:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
deliberately adding incorrect info
hoax information
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,
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.
Stability is not really a goal in an wiki encyclopedia
a change between two article paragraph versions every hour, (let's assume for clarification: made by two editors alternately).
a change between two article paragraph versions every hour, (let's assume for clarification: made by two editors alternately).
Stability is not really a goal in an wiki encyclopedia that literally anyone can edit, at any time.