I think Daniel (maveric) is not really proposing a change in policy, so much as he is making a call for a more congenial and cooperative attitude.
Repeatedly reverting others' edits is a pointless waste of time and will never resolve controversies about facts or points of view (POV). We ought to make a distinction, as I think mav has done, between (1) taking a firm stand against simple vandalism like "you are a poopoo head" and (2) stubbornly insisting on "rightness" in a POV dispute.
Resolution of a dispute requires a mutually agreeable outcome, a "win-win" condition. Otherwise, it's not stable. We ought to work toward stability by clarifying each person's win conditions.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
I guess my "win" condition excludes double-talk... I find your answer without substantive content, essentially a Rodney King statement, "Why can't we all get along?" Wholesome and true, but not relevant to the questions Daniel raises.
Fred
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:08:45 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Policy on Reversions?
I think Daniel (maveric) is not really proposing a change in policy, so much as he is making a call for a more congenial and cooperative attitude.
Repeatedly reverting others' edits is a pointless waste of time and will never resolve controversies about facts or points of view (POV). We ought to make a distinction, as I think mav has done, between (1) taking a firm stand against simple vandalism like "you are a poopoo head" and (2) stubbornly insisting on "rightness" in a POV dispute.
Resolution of a dispute requires a mutually agreeable outcome, a "win-win" condition. Otherwise, it's not stable. We ought to work toward stability by clarifying each person's win conditions.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ed-
Repeatedly reverting others' edits is a pointless waste of time
Pointless for whom? The reality is that it works: One side usually gives up and the other side "wins", with at worst a slight loss of face (but when the "loser" brings up the edit war on the list, they will be reminded that it "takes two to tango"). Regulars who engage in blanket reverts are not faced with any serious actions or reprimands, and reverting is so much easier than discussing things and resolving problems.
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. To say that the other side should simply let it rest for a few days and come back later is idiotic if you're dealing with a regular who will be just as willing to do blanket reverts three days later as he is today. Edit wars are not purely a symptom of heightened emotions, they are a symptom of fundamental differences in beliefs and an unwillingness to bridge them through NPOV.
A code of honor works well for small projects with like-minded people. Wikipedia is neither small nor like-minded. That's why it needs policies which are actually followed through, and not just a call for WikiLove every now and then. We don't need a WikiGestapo, but we need a certain amount of policy enforcement and clear rules, and that's just not happening. As a result, NPOV is mostly theoretical for many of the controversial articles on Wikipedia.
Regards,
Erik