Matthew Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Ian Woollard
> <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Another issue that admins are quite prone to (along with many
>> seasoned editors) is that they tend to get *really* overprotective
>> of articles.
>
> Very true, and I suspect most people will get all protective of an
> article they've put a lot of time into. The other half of the
> problem
> is that edits from a new user who just happens along are often bad,
> stylistically at least, and thus easy to respond negatively to even
> if
> they have a good point inelegantly expressed.
>
> -Matt
My take is that we have two types of well-meaning editor- those who
understand our policies and guidelines (including MOS), and those who don't.
The former are adept at creating good content through practice, the latter
may need educating, and this is normally done through templated messages,
the first level of which assumes good faith; however, it is often easier
when time is short to revert with an edit summary of "unsourced",
"irrelevant" or something equally blunt. Again, in my experience, very few
"unsophisticated" (and this is not meant to be an insult) editors complain,
because they edit and move on. Those who do should be directed to
guidelines, but it becomes tiresome when they just don't (or won't) "get
it". The overhead of this detracts from creation of good content; not
helpful to newbies, perhaps, but I think this is how it is seen.