[WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com>:
> > Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?"
>
> Yes. A logical argument generally starts by defining some terms and
> stating a few axioms and following logical implications from those.
>

My arguments tend to be more rational than "logical."

> Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:"
> Every
> > edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was
> 5.7
> > years ago.
> > You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a
> > "convention" is not a "system."
>
> I'm guessing you don't mean "edit conflict" as in when two people edit
> the same page at the same time? You mean "edit *war*", yes? I don't
> see why an old system is necessarily a bad one and you haven't
> explained how your system would be better than the current one (which
> is far more than just conventions, we have very clear policy on DR).
>

Not all "conflicts" rise to the level of "wars."  So not all edit conflicts
are "edit wars." The latter term has implications that transcend most
"conflicts between editors" or "editorial conflicts."

The technical usage of "edit conflict" to mean a state wherein a session has
been interrupted by changes by another user, in a certain way usurps the
canonical (common English) usage of the word "conflict" for a technical
purpose.  And even in technical context, its a bit of an outdated misnomer:

* Outdated, because since  section editing was implemented five years ago,
they rarely happen.
* Misnomer, because those "conflicts" are technical and not "edit"-orial,
and anyway are not so much "conflicts" as they are "interrupts." (Note that
other wiki software have these handled via simple usage of session lockouts.
Not to say that such would work for us, though).

If its got a simple technical solution, its probably not the "conflict" we
are talking about. This should correct not just your terminology, but our
general conventional misuse which I too once or twice have been a party to.
Its been a while since Ive had an "edit interrupt" myself.  Edit conflicts
(not "wars") however occur hourly. :-)

-Stevertigo