Agreed, 3RR exists for discouraging edit wars, not for deciding their outcome.
2007/6/22, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 22/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The main reasoning behind BOLD is the fact that it's easy to undo any mistakes. That holds for (most) administrative actions as well as basic editing, so why wouldn't BOLD apply?
But the problem is that it isn't that easy. 3RR gives whoever makes the first change an advantage: their opponent will get hit by the rule first. Being BOLD in policy is a major cause of The Wrong Version, because it's likely that disputes will get the text locked in the changed version.
Perhaps admins should be encouraged to revert the article to whatever state it was in before the edit war started before protecting it. That would give the article a clean start and let the changes be made more constructively.
There is much to be said for that approach as an initial finding. Nevertheless those who are resistant to change are as much a part of the problem as those making the changes. Remember too that the purpose of 3RR is to calm down the debate not to settle it. We want the combattants to settle their differences on the talk page. If the person supporting the existing refuses to even discuss the changes on the talk page no matter what reasons are given to make the change then perhaps the new version should be the one supported.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l