Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.
New users, please see Help or go to the Pub to ask questions.

Wikitravel talk:Edit war

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Is "formatting according to our MoS" edit warring?[edit]

Perhaps appropriately, given its subject matter, this policy page has been constructed by individual editors plunging forward and writing stuff that seemed blindingly obvious to them.

Rather refreshingly, a brand new IBadmin has queried whether making persistent changes to article formatting that comply with our Manual of Style is "something that needs to be discussed first within the community. I'm referring to this [1] change."

Does anybody else think that (for example) when more knowledgeable editors continuously and relentlessly change formatting that does not conform to our Manual of Style (without good reason) - such as changing "150 Pesos" to the more correct "₱150" - this is edit warring?

Who else thinks that in cases of controversy, the style manual should not trump? --singaporeAlice 14:51, 19 November 2012 (EST)

(Copied from Wikitravel:Travellers' pub):
Edit warring is edit warring, regardless of whether one of the parties is "right" and the other party is "wrong".
If two people are changing the article formatting back and forth, the correct thing to do is to follow the procedure discussed in Wikitravel:Edit war. JYolkowski 22:12, 21 November 2012 (EST)
Mmmm, interesting point of view.
In this edit you quite properly re-instated our standard "Do" heading in an outline article - presumably on the basis that our current policies suggest it should remain there as a prompt to somebody to later flesh out that article by suggesting things to do in Waterdown.
What if the same unregistered "IP editor" continued to delete that standard heading (despite your explanation and referral to our policies on his User Talk page) and refused to make any comment at all or explanation for why he thought it should be removed?
The nutshell advice on the policy page here simply does not work in the situation where your antagonist refuses to engage with a reasoned rationale for their reverts.
In my Peso/₱ example, your stance would render all the erudite discussion at $ as to which is the better form, moot. Are you really saying that, in this situation, Let the baby have his way? On our current policy page the example of edit warring given concerns not a decided policy or MoS contravention but a subjective opinion as to whether the best goth club in Toronto is the Nyghte Shayde Tavyrne or the Dimme Lyghte Tempyle and it is not possible to say whether one of the parties is "right" and the other party is "wrong".
In my (deliberately) trivial Peso/₱ example, then nothing really is lost, but what about breaches of xl? Should we really let persistent spammers have their way?
In the common law of most English speaking jurisdictions, the law recognises a qualitative difference between an unprovoked assault and a reasonable and measured defence to an unprovoked attack and does not call the defence an "assault" because it is justified in law. Similarly I would argue that, where policy is clear and unequivocal (and unless an exceptional case can be made), the style manual should trump. --singaporeAlice 22:45, 21 November 2012 (EST)
The quote you included contains the words "With rare exception." That's why you need to discuss with the other party instead of edit warring with them, to determine whether this is one of these exceptions. Also, the style manual is collection of rules of thumb and guidelines, which are bound to have exceptions. The MoS is not as inviolable as you make it out to be. Cheers, JYolkowski 19:07, 23 November 2012 (EST)
I agree that discussion and persuasion is best. But when an interlocutor persistently refuses to discuss a change which, on the face of it seems both unhelpful to the traveller and a contravention of previous consensus, labelling the correction by the style-compliant editor edit warring hardly seems to advance two of our primary goals of:
1) *Content should target our goals. Everything put into Wikitravel should help us meet our goal of making a free, complete, up-to-date, and reliable travel guide. Content that doesn't help us do that doesn't have a place in Wikitravel.
2) *Text and images should follow style guidelines. With rare exception, text and images should follow our Manual of style. Exceptions should gain wide consensus; in cases of controversy, the style manual trumps.
If one of the two editors is editing according to our MoS, in the absence of a consensus that this is one of those "rare exception"s where it is best to flout the MoS, the other editor is entitled to maintain their correction - without being accused of edit warring - until and unless a consensus for unusual change is achieved. --singaporeAlice 00:17, 24 November 2012 (EST)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages