Mgm wrote:
---If incremental changes mess up the page's organization the way to fix it is to implement the changes into the organization, not to revert and remove them altogether.
I'm also wondering why uninvitedcomany thinks an edit with great improvements would require him to become a revert warrior. If the changes are really that good you'll be able to get others to revert for you.---
I think I described the edits we're talking about here as "unremarkable -- neither helpful nor especially detrimental to the article."
Probably the best example is an accurate, though perhaps poorly worded and misplaced summary of a fact that already appears elsewhere in the article. Such prose can't be improved or rewritten, because it already exists in the article in the proper place with the appropriate wording. There is nothing useful to be done but revert the change, even though it was done in good faith and was factually sound, and even perhaps well-referenced.
One of the things I've learned about Wikipedia is that the editing experience differs considerably among subject areas. There are many areas of the project that aren't controversial, and that are edited primarily by disinterested Wikipedians. It is in these subject areas -- which include the vast bulk of the articles -- where MGM's statements are absolutely true. In other more controversial areas, such laudable civility does not hold. There are parts of Wikipedia where you can change "a" to "the" and have it seem as though you have detonated a land mine, so fragile is the editing truce that prevails.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. (a Delaware corporation)