Slim writes.
Some of the editors writing in this thread seem to believe there are teams of editors willing to delete original research wherever they find it, so that no editor is ever left isolated dealing with a POV pusher who's inserting nonsense. That just isn't true
I assure you that it is. Any time you spot a POV pusher filling an article with unverifiable tripe, just leave a message at [[User talk: Tony Sidaway]] and you and I, we'll be that team. If there are two of them, we'll get a third guy; and that way there's no way anybody will have to breach 3RR.
Some of the editors writing in this thread seem to believe there are teams of editors willing to delete original research wherever they find it, so that no editor is ever left isolated dealing with a POV pusher who's inserting nonsense. That just isn't true
I assure you that it is. Any time you spot a POV pusher filling an article with unverifiable tripe, just leave a message at [[User talk: Tony Sidaway]] and you and I, we'll be that team. If there are two of them, we'll get a third guy; and that way there's no way anybody will have to breach 3RR.
Unless you're on vaction or something. I think systemic fixes are far more reliable than "don't worry, I'll make sure this doesn't happen" assurances.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
Some of the editors writing in this thread seem to believe there are teams of editors willing to delete original research wherever they find it, so that no editor is ever left isolated dealing with a POV pusher who's inserting nonsense. That just isn't true
I assure you that it is. Any time you spot a POV pusher filling an article with unverifiable tripe, just leave a message at [[User talk: Tony Sidaway]] and you and I, we'll be that team. If there are two of them, we'll get a third guy; and that way there's no way anybody will have to breach 3RR.
Unless you're on vaction or something. I think systemic fixes are far more reliable than "don't worry, I'll make sure this doesn't happen" assurances.
You and I are not the only editors on Wikipedia.
And in the example you gave, Charles has already given a good critique of your claim that this would constitute "original research". There would in any case be no need to revert in this case; simply edit the contentious statement so that it is verifiably true and cite your sources. Then everybody will know that you're right and you'll encounter no problems persuading others to deal with this chap if he tries to replace the verifiable statement with an unverifiable one.
JAY JG said:
Some of the editors writing in this thread seem to believe there are teams of editors willing to delete original research wherever they find it, so that no editor is ever left isolated dealing with a POV pusher who's inserting nonsense. That just isn't true
I assure you that it is. Any time you spot a POV pusher filling an article with unverifiable tripe, just leave a message at [[User talk: Tony Sidaway]] and you and I, we'll be that team. If there are two of them, we'll get a third guy; and that way there's no way anybody will have to breach 3RR.
Unless you're on vaction or something. I think systemic fixes are far more reliable than "don't worry, I'll make sure this doesn't happen" assurances.
You and I are not the only editors on Wikipedia.
And in the example you gave, Charles has already given a good critique of your claim that this would constitute "original research". There would in any case be no need to revert in this case; simply edit the contentious statement so that it is verifiably true and cite your sources. Then everybody will know that you're right and you'll encounter no problems persuading others to deal with this chap if he tries to replace the verifiable statement with an unverifiable one.
Ah, if only things typically worked that way; you must be editing in an entirely different area of Wikipedia than I do. In my experience other editors rarely care to get involved in areas in which they have no interest or expertise (if they notice the problem at all); instead the common reaction is "well, these two guys are just edit-warring, and I don't know who is right, so I'm not going to get worked up about it." As for the example, it's true it was off the top of my head, and perhaps there are many web sites and blogs that "support" that particular claim. A better example would have been the many people who read the theory or opinion or argument of a notable individual on a particular topic, well cited, and decide they need to insert their own "rebuttal" of that person's views, on the grounds that the cited views are completely wrong. Though I will repeatedly state "you can't just make up your own arguments as to why this guy is wrong, you have to cite others who rebut or disagree with this person", it typically has little impact.
Jay.
Jay.
JAY JG said: [....]
the common reaction is "well, these two guys are just edit-warring, and I don't know who is right, so I'm not going to get worked up about it."
Do you expect this kind of thing to happen a lot? I mean, you expect to get into an edit war and then ask others to either come to your assistance or relax the 3RR so you are permitted to continue? I think this is a highly contentious way of interacting on Wikipedia, and not one to be condoned. Talk pages exist for a good purpose. Revert limits and guidelines counseling against edit warring also exist for a good purpose. Edit warring is *not* considered a good way of dealing with problems.
JAY JG said: [....]
the common reaction is "well, these two guys are just edit-warring, and I don't know who is right, so I'm not going to get worked up about it."
Do you expect this kind of thing to happen a lot?
Certain areas of Wikipedia attract conflict; that's the way of the world.
I mean, you expect to get into an edit war and then ask others to either come to your assistance or relax the 3RR so you are permitted to continue?
I don't "expect to get into an edit war", nor have I ever suggested "relaxing" the 3RR;. Let's avoid straw-man arguments, and let's try to keep the discussion on the issue, not the person.
I think this is a highly contentious way of interacting on Wikipedia, and not one to be condoned. Talk pages exist for a good purpose.
Indeed they do. If only people used them, rather than POVing and "original research"ing articles, and then edit-warring to preserve their POV and original research insertions.
Revert limits and guidelines counseling against edit warring also exist for a good purpose. Edit warring is *not* considered a good way of dealing with problems.
No, it's not; however, it is sometimes the best of a number of bad choices. If only there were other remedies that actually worked effectively all the time.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
I mean, you expect to get into an edit war and then ask others to either come to your assistance or relax the 3RR so you are permitted to continue?
I don't "expect to get into an edit war", nor have I ever suggested "relaxing" the 3RR;.
Okay, so if you won't get into an edit war and you won't hve a problem with 3RR enforcement if you do, what is the problem? Has the topic of this discussion drifted while I wasn't looking?
I think this is a highly contentious way of interacting on Wikipedia, and not one to be condoned. Talk pages exist for a good purpose.
Indeed they do. If only people used them, rather than POVing and "original research"ing articles, and then edit-warring to preserve their POV and original research insertions.
So this is all about "other" people, then?
Revert limits and guidelines counseling against edit warring also exist for a good purpose. Edit warring is *not* considered a good way of dealing with problems.
No, it's not; however, it is sometimes the best of a number of bad choices. If only there were other remedies that actually worked effectively all the time.
Perhaps I didn't put it clearly enough: edit warring is seen as a major problem. It is never "the best of a number of choices" to engage in silly warring. Where there is an edit dispute, get more people to look at the article. That solves the problem far quicker and more effectively than tit-for-tat editing. I simply don't buy your claim that you alone are capable or and willing to determine which of two people, you and the other edit warrior, is doing good edits.