On Monday 07 February 2005 16:41, David Gerard wrote:
If it doesn't work, we can create a "3 unjustified edits rule", similar to the 3RR, and enforced in the same way. This need only be applied to articles with the controversial header. This should help to some extent, as forcing descriptions and justifications will slow editors down and may also create a deterrent for edits that authors *know* are NPOV or are unwilling to discuss the matter. This may help get rid of the more rabid POV editors.
I don't think it'll do a damned thing to slow down POV pushers, but I do think the Summary field being compulsory would be good. It actually took me a couple of days to realise what it was for (commenting in a version control system).
I don't think that the summary field is sufficient for more than describing the most minor edits (say, fixing a typo). More complex edits, particularly if they need justifying, need an entry on the discussion page. This also helps other users to explain why they agree or (more likely, unfortunately) disagree.
My experience, having tried this informally for a few days and encouraged/nagged others to do likewise, is that it does seem to reduce the amount of edit wars. It still doesn't eliminate them, but it does help. And when someone is forced to view the talk page first, there's a fair chance that he'll at least read the most recent comments. Call me an idealist and I won't argue, but I think that perhaps if people read comments explaining NPOV and the application to articles often enough, maybe it'll sink in.
A 3UER (Unjustified Edit Rule) would at least encourage collaboration. And if all else fails, it makes unreasonable editors MUCH easier to detect.
And maybe, if POV pushers lose motivation and drift away, it might be safe to remove the notice at a later date.
Jake.