Encountering certain problems with DBAD at the [[Human]] article, wondering if it would work to autoblock anyone from reverting a page whom has not actually participated in discussion on the talk page..
-SC
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:39 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Encountering certain problems with DBAD at the [[Human]] article, wondering if it would work to autoblock anyone from reverting a page whom has not actually participated in discussion on the talk page..
You would likely just force insincere discussion. Not that this doesn't happen already (sorry, in a cynical mood tonight).
Carcharoth
Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
You would likely just force insincere discussion. Not that this doesn't happen already (sorry, in a cynical mood tonight).
Ha: "Insincere discussion" - translation 'edit warring is more sincere.'
-SC
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:55 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
You would likely just force insincere discussion. Not that this doesn't happen already (sorry, in a cynical mood tonight).
Ha: "Insincere discussion" - translation 'edit warring is more sincere.'
-SC
More sincere then "posting to get past the edit filter ~~~~" :)
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com
I'm prett suspect that the vast majority of reverts on EN wiki are reversion of vandalism by hugglers and other patrollers at newpage patrol. I don't think it would be a good idea to discourage those who do that accurately. Giving feedback to those with an excessive error rate is useful - but not what you are proposing.
On 31 August 2010 01:29, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:55 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
You would likely just force insincere discussion. Not that this doesn't happen already (sorry, in a cynical mood tonight).
Ha: "Insincere discussion" - translation 'edit warring is more sincere.'
-SC
More sincere then "posting to get past the edit filter ~~~~" :)
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
I'm prett suspect that the vast majority of reverts on EN wiki are reversion of vandalism by hugglers and other patrollers at newpage patrol. I don't think it would be a good idea to discourage those who do that accurately. Giving feedback to those with an excessive error rate is useful - but not what you are proposing.
The concept is that reverts by people who don't participate in discussion are typically misinformed or adversarial at best. If you don't participate in discussion, there's no need for your help on the article.
-SC
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:38 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
I'm prett suspect that the vast majority of reverts on EN wiki are reversion of vandalism by hugglers and other patrollers at newpage patrol. I don't think it would be a good idea to discourage those who do that accurately. Giving feedback to those with an excessive error rate is useful - but not what you are proposing.
The concept is that reverts by people who don't participate in discussion are typically misinformed or adversarial at best. If you don't participate in discussion, there's no need for your help on the article.
-SC
While I would tend to agree with that thought for most content issues I
would say that requiring people to be active in a discussion on a page before then can revert vandalism/attacks etc would be detrimental to the page and the project.
-- James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com
On 01/09/2010, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
The concept is that reverts by people who don't participate in discussion are typically misinformed or adversarial at best. If you don't participate in discussion, there's no need for your help on the article.
Even if that's typical, inevitably it's sometimes going to be done by someone who knows exactly what they're doing, and the original editor may have genuinely missed something obvious.
Expecting them to jump through arbitrary hoops doesn't seem very wiki-friendly.
-SC