-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
I've actually had some luck with this. If someone makes an edit that doesn't hurt anything, but doesn't add anything either, I simply revert with the edit summary "rv: not an improvement". This seems to send a message to people that edits need to be constructive and have a
That's an incredibly hostile way of editing. What happens when someone thinks that your "rv. not an improvement" is "not an improvement"?
To be honest, I don't view this as a big deal, so I don't think it's worth taking up much time on the mailing list for. But the point is that I don't think many people view edits that don't actually improve the article as a bad thing. Frivolous editing- the kind of editing that looks good on the micro scale, but pays no real attention to what's going on in the article overall- can be very damaging when there has been enough of it. From listening to what other people on the list are saying, it seems to be the problem with [[Bill Gates]] and [[Jane Fonda]].
Maybe my way of responding to that is viewed as hostile because this isn't part of the common understanding, but I think it probably should be. Of course I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but if the article has to suffer because someone takes reverts personally, there isn't much I can do.
Ryan