Erik made an eloquent and keen observation:
:-) Until there is a firm policy that is strictly enforced (e.g. :-) you can revert only once, if that doesn't work, you will have :-) to take it to the talk page), edit wars will be a reality on :-) Wikipedia, and the side that is willing to invest the most :-) time in their "POV" will get it through by sheer force.
This is precisely the problem which vexes me. This is what makes me want to leave Wikipedia permanently, as I have been 'threatening' to do all this week. This is what has driven away countless superb contributors. Some have complained about this problem loudly and repeatedly before making a public departure, but many have just quietly vanished like Lewis Carroll's snark.
Thus I would like to propose the formation of a sort of club or SIG within Wikipedia - sort of on the lines of the old semi- humorous Wikipedia 'militia' - a group of contributors who will join to intervene in edit wars and work together to create a stable and neutral article, one which all parties to the edit war would agree is correct and good and satisfying.
These club members would show by example how to contribute in a harmonious, useful fashion. These members would bind THEMSELVES to the rule of "you can only revert once". They would propose options on the talk page BEFORE making edits to the article. They might even wait an hour or a day for assent from others before making a change.
These club members would politely remind others not to make abusive remarks on talk pages. They would refactor talk when it got too long or tangled.
I don't have to be the club president, we might not even need a president or a formal roster.
What does everyone think about this plan?
Ed Poor
I'd love this to work. I don't think I'm altruistic enough to be a participant, but if it worked, it would be great.
RickK
"Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote: Erik made an eloquent and keen observation:
:-) Until there is a firm policy that is strictly enforced (e.g. :-) you can revert only once, if that doesn't work, you will have :-) to take it to the talk page), edit wars will be a reality on :-) Wikipedia, and the side that is willing to invest the most :-) time in their "POV" will get it through by sheer force.
This is precisely the problem which vexes me. This is what makes me want to leave Wikipedia permanently, as I have been 'threatening' to do all this week. This is what has driven away countless superb contributors. Some have complained about this problem loudly and repeatedly before making a public departure, but many have just quietly vanished like Lewis Carroll's snark.
Thus I would like to propose the formation of a sort of club or SIG within Wikipedia - sort of on the lines of the old semi- humorous Wikipedia 'militia' - a group of contributors who will join to intervene in edit wars and work together to create a stable and neutral article, one which all parties to the edit war would agree is correct and good and satisfying.
These club members would show by example how to contribute in a harmonious, useful fashion. These members would bind THEMSELVES to the rule of "you can only revert once". They would propose options on the talk page BEFORE making edits to the article. They might even wait an hour or a day for assent from others before making a change.
These club members would politely remind others not to make abusive remarks on talk pages. They would refactor talk when it got too long or tangled.
I don't have to be the club president, we might not even need a president or a formal roster.
What does everyone think about this plan?
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:50:27 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal for Harmony (was: Policy on Reversions?)
Erik made an eloquent and keen observation:
:-) Until there is a firm policy that is strictly enforced (e.g. :-) you can revert only once, if that doesn't work, you will have :-) to take it to the talk page), edit wars will be a reality on :-) Wikipedia, and the side that is willing to invest the most :-) time in their "POV" will get it through by sheer force.
This is precisely the problem which vexes me. This is what makes me want to leave Wikipedia permanently, as I have been 'threatening' to do all this week. This is what has driven away countless superb contributors. Some have complained about this problem loudly and repeatedly before making a public departure, but many have just quietly vanished like Lewis Carroll's snark.
Thus I would like to propose the formation of a sort of club or SIG within Wikipedia - sort of on the lines of the old semi- humorous Wikipedia 'militia' - a group of contributors who will join to intervene in edit wars and work together to create a stable and neutral article, one which all parties to the edit war would agree is correct and good and satisfying.
How would club members find out about edit wars? (Actually there might be a software solution for this question). How would the club decide which "wars" to intervene in? How would the club communicate with one another?
These club members would show by example how to contribute in a harmonious, useful fashion. These members would bind THEMSELVES to the rule of "you can only revert once". They would propose options on the talk page BEFORE making edits to the article. They might even wait an hour or a day for assent from others before making a change.
These club members would politely remind others not to make abusive remarks on talk pages. They would refactor talk when it got too long or tangled.
I don't have to be the club president, we might not even need a president or a formal roster.
What does everyone think about this plan?
Ed Poor
Sounds like a spiderweb, well designed for catching flies (folks who with a little nudging come around), but ineffective on hawks (folks who are here to advance a POV). It also sounds very elitist and time-consuming. I'm still interested in how to catch hawks.
Fred
Hi all,
I find the one revert limit a little too virtuous; moreover, there has been a discussion and proposal on [[Wikipedia_talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version]] regarding a "three-revert" guideline.
This seems sensible to me (and others it appears). Moreover, I think this guideline can also be used as a definition of what an edit war is, namely reverting an edit more than three times.
This is useful because defining what exactly an edit war is is the first step to deciding what to do about them.
One possibility I discussed briefly yesterday with another sysop would be to ban users who have gotten involved in an edit war from the relevant article for a given period (a week or two). Although it would be nice, this would probably be impossible to do by software. So, who would decide this? What about a panel of sysops, say three or five, rotated on a monthly basis?
I appreciate Ed's proposal but fail to see how it would solve the problem of intransigent reverters like Wik.
V.
From: viajero@quilombo.nl Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:33:56 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Proposal for Harmony (was: Policy on Reversions?)
Hi all,
I find the one revert limit a little too virtuous; moreover, there has been a discussion and proposal on [[Wikipedia_talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version]] regarding a "three-revert" guideline.
This seems sensible to me (and others it appears). Moreover, I think this guideline can also be used as a definition of what an edit war is, namely reverting an edit more than three times.
Sounds good
This is useful because defining what exactly an edit war is is the first step to deciding what to do about them.
True
One possibility I discussed briefly yesterday with another sysop would be to ban users who have gotten involved in an edit war from the relevant article for a given period (a week or two). Although it would be nice, this would probably be impossible to do by software.
This would not be that difficult if it was good policy.
Fred
So, who would decide this? What about a panel of sysops, say three or five, rotated on a monthly basis?
Needs to be sysops who find this activity worthwhile
I appreciate Ed's proposal but fail to see how it would solve the problem of intransigent reverters like Wik.
V.
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I'm still interested in how to catch hawks.
You have a hunter on the ground with a shotgun. That's Jimbo. He may lend his shotgun to trusted people when he's got to potty-break, but it's still his responsibility.
The other option is to have a few eagles around who don't actually kill (hard-ban) the hawk, but rather drop it to the ground and pin it down until such time as the hunter (Jimbo) with the shotgun decides to pump it full of lead (hard -ban) or let it go with just a bruised ego.
Of course, eagles should stay above all edit wars, and if they get involved even for a second, other eagles should pounce on then and drop them to the ground for the hunter to review.
How to drop a hawk: temporary ban until review by Jimbo or his appointee.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree