On Monday 07 February 2005 17:06, David Gerard wrote:
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.
[...] I'm not sure we need this for *all* pages - it's really the problematic 0.1%.
I'm sorry, I meant only the highly controversial (read: problematic) pages.
The ArbCom has previously placed restrictions on individual editors to document better what they're doing, but the present AC is reluctant to do this at the article level, i.e. for *everyone* editing a given article.
I'm sure that the AC are intelligent, thoughtful people who are willing to change their minds if presented with a possible approach to ongoing problems. ;-)
(Though it's bloody tempting, e.g. on anything on the Israel-Palestine conflict.)
Would be nice on the circumcision articles, too... And *if* it's tempting, then the question is: is there a good reason not to *try* it?
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.
It's certainly a good practice where you're unsure of how an edit is going to go down - the usual way it's done is to include "(see talk)" in your edit summary and then explain yourself in talk. I'd be very reluctant to try to make it a requirement for all edits to all articles - it'd be a PITA to casual editing.
Yes, of course. But in terms of that 0.1%, edit wars are the biggest PITA, and are almost invariably caused by *unjustified* (and POV) edits.
Jake.