-----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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDRgCF6MKb8lYmCtcRApoDAJ0Ze26Nq5CV+El7WnVRlQcGZnV1YQCfVc2Z
WYv/owZyy8mnf3Qbqk9Vezw=
=n4It
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----