http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hughes_H-4_Hercules&diff=15013...
This is the kind of stuff that gets me down. I see some really crappy prose. I attempt to copyedit it, distilling four separate references to the plane's nickname ("spruce goose") down to one. Another user reverts my edit with "Revert- non productive edit- that was an improvement?"
Reverting is such an unpleasant thing to do to anyone, surely the balance should be towards "don't revert unless the edit is really bad", rather than "revert unless the edit is really good". Grr.
Steve
On 8/13/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hughes_H-4_Hercules&diff=15013...
This is the kind of stuff that gets me down. I see some really crappy prose. I attempt to copyedit it, distilling four separate references to the plane's nickname ("spruce goose") down to one. Another user reverts my edit with "Revert- non productive edit- that was an improvement?"
Reverting is such an unpleasant thing to do to anyone, surely the balance should be towards "don't revert unless the edit is really bad", rather than "revert unless the edit is really good". Grr.
I recall Jimbo once said a long long time ago that a revert is akin to a slap in the face. I've grown used to people not understanding this when they revert someone else.
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
On 8/13/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hughes_H-4_Hercules&diff=15013...
This is the kind of stuff that gets me down. I see some really crappy prose. I attempt to copyedit it, distilling four separate references to the plane's nickname ("spruce goose") down to one. Another user reverts my edit with "Revert- non productive edit- that was an improvement?"
Reverting is such an unpleasant thing to do to anyone, surely the balance should be towards "don't revert unless the edit is really bad", rather than "revert unless the edit is really good". Grr.
I recall Jimbo once said a long long time ago that a revert is akin to a slap in the face. I've grown used to people not understanding this when they revert someone else.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It depends on the circumstances (there have been times when I've certainly very knowingly engaged in BRD, and was well aware that the R was going to happen as part of the road to D). Generally speaking, though, if someone makes good-faith edits, they shouldn't be reverted unless they're just beyond salvaging (or in cases such as an unsubstantiated allegation against a living person, etc.). Regardless, reverting anything but blatant vandalism should merit at -minimum- leaving a note on the talk page as to why the revert was done so that the issue can be discussed.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Todd Allen Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Time for a rant
It depends on the circumstances (there have been times when I've certainly
very knowingly engaged in BRD, and
was well aware that the R was going to happen as part of the road to D).
Agreed.
Regardless, reverting anything but blatant vandalism should merit at
-minimum- leaving a note on the talk page
as to why the revert was done so that the issue can be discussed.
This is good advice for the "B" part of BRD as well as reverters. If the initial edits are at all major or likely to be misunderstood, then I'd tend to assume "what people don't have explained and might not be sure what's going on, is probably fair to assume they might revert". A refactor or major edit or cleanup can be quite hard to check if its genuinely good or what's happened, for a third party just looking at the DIFF. I suspect it helps other editors a lot to create a summary of changes and an explanation on the talk page, linked from the edit summary, up front, posted at the same time.
But to sympathize with the main point, blanket "I don't like this" reverts of good faith plausible edits, are usually far less helpful than discussion, or revert + discussion.
FT2.
On 8/13/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
It depends on the circumstances (there have been times when I've certainly
very knowingly engaged in BRD, and
was well aware that the R was going to happen as part of the road to D).
I still can't work out what B, R and D are. Enlighten me please? :)
But to sympathize with the main point, blanket "I don't like this" reverts of good faith plausible edits, are usually far less helpful than discussion, or revert + discussion.
Though to play devil's advocate, I had a long ongoing problem with one editor who basically took it upon himself to rewrite entire articles, paragraph by paragraph, over weeks and months. He was convinced there was a sneaky, subtle POV there that had to be exorcised. The trouble was, his edits (and his writing style in general) were very difficult to understand and often had grammar problems. It was so tempting to revert them sometimes, but I usually ended up having to copy edit them all instead - a process he was fine with. He was more than happy to argue and explain his reasoning ad infinitum but it just never made much sense. And it was just so much work to actually try and understand the ridiculously subtle points he was making, and also to re-copyedit these paragraphs he was systematically ripping up and rearranging. Grr.
Steve
On 8/13/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
It depends on the circumstances (there have been times when I've
certainly
very knowingly engaged in BRD, and
was well aware that the R was going to happen as part of the road to
D).
I still can't work out what B, R and D are. Enlighten me please? :)
Bold - Revert - Discuss. It's an editing model that acknowledges that the flipside of Be Bold! and Ignore all rules! is that people are free to remove whatever you do, and that in disagreements, you need to talk it out. It works well when you get to D (which admittedly is sometimes an ugly process).
But to sympathize with the main point, blanket "I don't like this" reverts
of good faith plausible edits, are usually far less helpful than
discussion,
or revert + discussion.
Though to play devil's advocate, I had a long ongoing problem with one editor who basically took it upon himself to rewrite entire articles, paragraph by paragraph, over weeks and months. He was convinced there was a sneaky, subtle POV there that had to be exorcised. The trouble was, his edits (and his writing style in general) were very difficult to understand and often had grammar problems. It was so tempting to revert them sometimes, but I usually ended up having to copy edit them all instead - a process he was fine with. He was more than happy to argue and explain his reasoning ad infinitum but it just never made much sense. And it was just so much work to actually try and understand the ridiculously subtle points he was making, and also to re-copyedit these paragraphs he was systematically ripping up and rearranging. Grr.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I still can't work out what B, R and D are. Enlighten me please? :)
Bold-Revert-Discuss
And sometimes it's...
Bold-Revert-Discuss-Shrug-Leave
Once I asked for the difference between "consensus" and "groupthink" and now I'm wondering what the difference is between "consensus" and "WP:OWN". It might turn out to be a question of numbers. If it's one or two then it's "WP:OWN". If it's a whole bunch of editors and an admin or two, then it's "consensus".
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
BRD was wrong from the beginning, and is the childish way to play a game, not the constructive way to build an encyclopedia. Its a certain way to start out on the wrong footing, and only an object being designed for those who would rather fight than write would have even imagined it.
I have never seen it produce a good synthesis. If the idea is to break up ownership of an article it doesn't do it--the owners just come together and attack the intruder. I've sometime done it out of impatience, and it's even worked once or twice, when I've been able to sound intimidating enough. I feel ashamed thinking of when i used it--it would always have been better to say, I don't think this will stand, and unless you can give me a good reason, I'm going to delete it--and when a reason is given, then to suggest a compromise, and make the compromise the first actual edit.
When it's been used against something I've written, it greatly decreases the chance that I'll agree--any normal person who wants to survive, when attacked, defends himself--unless I feel my position is too weak to stand--but then I'd agree all the more if asked and given a chance to think first.
BRD is editing by intimidation. Where it belongs, is as a subtype of NPA, and there should be warning templates for its use.
On 8/13/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I still can't work out what B, R and D are. Enlighten me please? :)
Bold-Revert-Discuss
And sometimes it's...
Bold-Revert-Discuss-Shrug-Leave
Once I asked for the difference between "consensus" and "groupthink" and now I'm wondering what the difference is between "consensus" and "WP:OWN". It might turn out to be a question of numbers. If it's one or two then it's "WP:OWN". If it's a whole bunch of editors and an admin or two, then it's "consensus".
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/13/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
BRD was wrong from the beginning,
[snipidy do da]
But if you make a bold edit and it gets reverted, what are your other choices? The only other civil thing to do is "shrug and leave". The dickish thing to do is make the bold again, it gets reverted again, bold revert bold revert bold revert 3RR *WHACK*. Of course another option is to discuss your proposed change on the talk page first but that defeats who whole idea of WP:BOLD.
Maybe the best thing to say about BRD is that it's the lesser evil.
Disagree,
Even before it was formally written, the principle of it -- be bold, and see what others think, if they don't like it then discuss and collaborate rather than fall out - was an established principle.
BRD merely gave it a name and a description, so others could see what was going on and not stress over it. Whether or not formally titled and given its own acronym, it's been a remarkably useful and positive approach, under sensible usage by skilled editors.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of David Goodman Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:23 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Time for a rant
BRD was wrong from the beginning, and is the childish way to play a game, not the constructive way to build an encyclopedia. Its a certain way to start out on the wrong footing, and only an object being designed for those who would rather fight than write would have even imagined it.
I have never seen it produce a good synthesis. If the idea is to break up ownership of an article it doesn't do it--the owners just come together and attack the intruder. I've sometime done it out of impatience, and it's even worked once or twice, when I've been able to sound intimidating enough. I feel ashamed thinking of when i used it--it would always have been better to say, I don't think this will stand, and unless you can give me a good reason, I'm going to delete it--and when a reason is given, then to suggest a compromise, and make the compromise the first actual edit.
When it's been used against something I've written, it greatly decreases the chance that I'll agree--any normal person who wants to survive, when attacked, defends himself--unless I feel my position is too weak to stand--but then I'd agree all the more if asked and given a chance to think first.
BRD is editing by intimidation. Where it belongs, is as a subtype of NPA, and there should be warning templates for its use.
Just so--the established principle was wrong from the beginning. I'm not talking about the WP page justifying it--I'm talking about the whole idea of trying to do constructive work in a system based upon provocation and intimidation.
I understand the intent, but I always emotionally respond to B as being an attack, and to R as an insult. In editing, that's what I see universally. Once these emotions have been aroused, yes, it is possible to continue calmly, but it is not easy to do so, and most people cannot do it. For myself, I do not trust myself to continue constructively once such an exchange has occurred, and I therefore normally do not edit further any article where I encounter that practice. That's probably because I do not regard making an encyclopedia as a contact sport where all the apparent fighting is done in play.
My psychological device for working at WP is to avoid commitment over any one article or issue. Anyone who wants me to stop editing "their" article need only be sufficiently hostile. I could do much more here if I knew I would be received politely. At present, I simply will not work on articles of any direct personal concern.
On 8/14/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Disagree,
Even before it was formally written, the principle of it -- be bold, and see what others think, if they don't like it then discuss and collaborate rather than fall out - was an established principle.
BRD merely gave it a name and a description, so others could see what was going on and not stress over it. Whether or not formally titled and given its own acronym, it's been a remarkably useful and positive approach, under sensible usage by skilled editors.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of David Goodman Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:23 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Time for a rant
BRD was wrong from the beginning, and is the childish way to play a game, not the constructive way to build an encyclopedia. Its a certain way to start out on the wrong footing, and only an object being designed for those who would rather fight than write would have even imagined it.
I have never seen it produce a good synthesis. If the idea is to break up ownership of an article it doesn't do it--the owners just come together and attack the intruder. I've sometime done it out of impatience, and it's even worked once or twice, when I've been able to sound intimidating enough. I feel ashamed thinking of when i used it--it would always have been better to say, I don't think this will stand, and unless you can give me a good reason, I'm going to delete it--and when a reason is given, then to suggest a compromise, and make the compromise the first actual edit.
When it's been used against something I've written, it greatly decreases the chance that I'll agree--any normal person who wants to survive, when attacked, defends himself--unless I feel my position is too weak to stand--but then I'd agree all the more if asked and given a chance to think first.
BRD is editing by intimidation. Where it belongs, is as a subtype of NPA, and there should be warning templates for its use.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Your edit had a mistake, though: "making its first and only flight took place in 1947."
On 8/13/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hughes_H-4_Hercules&diff=15013...
This is the kind of stuff that gets me down. I see some really crappy prose. I attempt to copyedit it, distilling four separate references to the plane's nickname ("spruce goose") down to one. Another user reverts my edit with "Revert- non productive edit- that was an improvement?"
Reverting is such an unpleasant thing to do to anyone, surely the balance should be towards "don't revert unless the edit is really bad", rather than "revert unless the edit is really good". Grr.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/12/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hughes_H-4_Hercules&diff=15013...
This is the kind of stuff that gets me down. I see some really crappy prose. I attempt to copyedit it, distilling four separate references to the plane's nickname ("spruce goose") down to one. Another user reverts my edit with "Revert- non productive edit- that was an improvement?"
Reverting is such an unpleasant thing to do to anyone, surely the balance should be towards "don't revert unless the edit is really bad", rather than "revert unless the edit is really good". Grr.
Steve
Some of the aircraft editors are very possessive about their crappy articles. The small craft articles contain many that are essentially pamphlets for the airplane, and attempts to convert them to prose are not appreciated. When I read your post, I assumed you made improvements to the prose, and knew they would not be appreciated.
KP
On 8/13/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/12/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hughes_H-4_Hercules&diff=15013...
This is the kind of stuff that gets me down. I see some really crappy prose. I attempt to copyedit it, distilling four separate references to the plane's nickname ("spruce goose") down to one. Another user reverts my edit with "Revert- non productive edit- that was an improvement?"
Reverting is such an unpleasant thing to do to anyone, surely the balance should be towards "don't revert unless the edit is really bad", rather than "revert unless the edit is really good". Grr.
Steve
Some of the aircraft editors are very possessive about their crappy articles. The small craft articles contain many that are essentially pamphlets for the airplane, and attempts to convert them to prose are not appreciated. When I read your post, I assumed you made improvements to the prose, and knew they would not be appreciated.
That may be true, but there are also reasonable editors working on aircraft articles...
If you have problems with someone on one of them, ping me, and I can get a couple of others involved as well.
On 8/15/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
That may be true, but there are also reasonable editors working on aircraft articles...
If you have problems with someone on one of them, ping me, and I can get a couple of others involved as well.
Well I've had a bit of a talk to this guy by email (and some others did via his talkpage - rather unfortunately deleted by him), I think mostly he had a few misconceptions about Wikipedia. As apparently he's a bit of a subject expert, we really don't want to scare off people like this - we just need to try hard to make them understand the local culture. Like, you don't revert. And you don't generally remove comments from your own talk page. Though [[help:reverting]] seems to condone that - which I find a bit weird.
He seems to have begrudgingly accepted my advice. Godspeed.
Steve