Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2015/July

Proposal
the current version of the lead article paragraph:

should be changed to:

Rationale
Instead of indicating the problems of the current version in detail I produced a completely "alternative" version, which for my understanding better "explains" what is really going on, and how "editing warring" is just as much a consequence of policy decisions, as it is of the intransigence or "inconsensuality" of "evil", "incorrigible", "pubescent" editors.

Quessler (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia intentionally does not distinguish, does not attempt to distinguish between... factually correct or incorrect article states..." This is plainly incorrect as deliberately adding incorrect info is treated as vandalism. The rest of the wording does not seem to be an improvement either with awkward phrasings and dubious assertions (stability is wikipedia's primary editing goal). --Neil N  talk to me 14:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * please check your proposition against the following "current", "correct" definition of vandalism


 * Why is your "interpretation":


 * "unintentionally" not part of the definition?


 * How do you prove intent?

Quessler (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not required to "prove" anything. We can use our common sense. --Neil N  talk to me 15:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * not surprisingly, you did not answer the question, why


 * is not part of the "official" definition of vandalism?


 * Do you want me to extend the current definition of "vandalism" by adding your clarification? Quessler (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's already there: Vandalism. --Neil N  talk to me 19:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * is


 * equivalent to


 * it is a subset of "incorrect info", "trivially obvious" incorrect info,

"non-trivially" incorrect info is not included in current wikipedia practice or current definitions of vandalism, or the concept of edit warring. So my statement:


 * is correct,


 * , : it seems to be surprisingly difficult, however, for wikipedians to accept that "fact". Quessler (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Quessler, "Deliberately adding falsities to articles, particularly to biographies of living people, with hoax information is considered vandalism" is pretty clear. I think at this point you have to realize there's no support for your proposed changes. --Neil N  talk to me 20:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If I understand you,, right, according to you


 * and this describes the current philosophy, policy of wikipedia? Quessler (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I also don't see this as an improvement. Stability is not really a goal in an wiki encyclopedia that literally anyone can edit, at any time. One of the principles of Wikipedia is that it is a work in progress and that we desire incremental improvement. Also, I'm sorry, but your proposed wording is ungrammatical.- MrX 15:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the effort, my text can certainly be improved upon. Quessler (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you agree that the term "ungrammatical" with the examples given could be considered slightly inappropriate as no underlying english language rules seem to have been violated, unless, of course, you intentionally used the term as a hyberbolic equivalent of "stylistically dubious"? Quessler (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * please correct, if your time allows, the ungrammaticality of my wording. Quessler (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The fourth and fifth sentences are run-on sentences. The word 'abstain' should be 'refrain'. - MrX 19:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is a change between two article paragraph versions every hour a problem for an "anyone can edit" wikipedia? Quessler (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are referring to. I never said anything about "every hour".- MrX 19:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You said


 * so if text stability is not really an issue, why is


 * a problem? Quessler (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know where that second quote comes from or its context, so I can't answer your question.- MrX 20:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * you do not know where the quote


 * comes from? it is "simply" my interpretation of your position, statement:


 * "if stability is not really a goal", why are occurrences currently called "edit warring", why are repeated reverts a "problem"? Quessler (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Repeated reverts are a problem not because the article keeps bouncing back and forth between one state and another &mdash; it's unlikely many readers even notice that &mdash; but because they are disruptive and counterproductive. It's impossible to have a meaningful and productive discussion, involving a number of editors, in edit summaries. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)