Wikipedia talk:Editing policy: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
:I think there's a very real difference in net editor-work required to improve the encyclopedia between adopting a GIGO stance that insists on new iterative additions being adequately cited, and going out of one's way to remove existing uncited but plausibly WP:V material of unknown provenance—which often makes it harder for later editors to fill in the gaps of substance that are often created. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 07:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
:I think there's a very real difference in net editor-work required to improve the encyclopedia between adopting a GIGO stance that insists on new iterative additions being adequately cited, and going out of one's way to remove existing uncited but plausibly WP:V material of unknown provenance—which often makes it harder for later editors to fill in the gaps of substance that are often created. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 07:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
||
::Repeating my wish for a tool that would display each of the major additions throughout an article's history that have since been removed. I would make tough choices with much less dread if I knew it was easier for others to see and evaluate what is no longer in an article if they so choose. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 08:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
::Repeating my wish for a tool that would display each of the major additions throughout an article's history that have since been removed. I would make tough choices with much less dread if I knew it was easier for others to see and evaluate what is no longer in an article if they so choose. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 08:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
||
:My approach is similar to Doniago's. If it seems like a plausible and useful addition, I'll do a quick search to see if I can add a source myself (and sometimes succeed). I don't know about Huggle, but Twinkle lets you select ''Reverted good-faith edits'', which is a bit gentler. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 13:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 13:32, 21 September 2024
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Editing policy page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages. |
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 1 Feb 2010. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
the word "Excise " in article
In the bold itilatc under how to fix I see the word "excise" I'm confused did the writer mean exercise in the article? 2600:1008:B055:9D1E:7FC5:2195:EA9F:B48B (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- No. See wikt:excise. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Notice of an RFC that may affect this policy
An RFC proposing to move WP:MASSCREATE out of WP:Bot policy has been started at WT:Bot policy#RFC: Sever WP:MASSCREATE from WP:BOTPOL. One of the options suggested for its new location is to move WP:MASSCREATE into this policy. Other options are a standalone policy page, or some other policy page. Please comment there if interested. Anomie⚔ 20:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
"Conservative" is being misused to describe far right and nationalist views.
When attempting to correct descriptions of nationalist far right groups, currently described as "conservative" Chris X deletes these changes. This wrong! Pjtawney (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is not the place to seek help with this issue. See the "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Editing policy page" box at the top of this page for suggestions regarding where you should go for assistance. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
We shouldn't revert edits just because they're unsourced right?
This is a bit of a mistake I've made in my Huggle sessions. Most people who add unsourced material that sounds true are completely new to Wikipedia. Usually, it's not only true, but the source is out there. Looking for a reliable source (and knowing which RS guideline applies) will take effort most people are unwilling to put in. People who add unsourced material are generally here to build an encyclopedia, they're just bold. (Of course, there's the defamation issue, but although you should revert unsourced claims on BLPs you should paste them somewhere first so you can research them.) T3h 1337 b0y 02:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I typically revert newly added unsourced edits where I'm not 100% sure they're true and leave a note for the editor who added the information, on the grounds that if they added the information to begin with, then they're probably most qualified to know from where they found the information. DonIago (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- In my experience, most instances of editors making totally unsourced additions to articles will fall under one of the following scenarios:
- The addition boils down to a series of claims with dubious verifiability
- The added material is very likely to be undue within the article.
- After being reverted, the material is readded in a constructive manner that includes viable inline citations
- I think there's a very real difference in net editor-work required to improve the encyclopedia between adopting a GIGO stance that insists on new iterative additions being adequately cited, and going out of one's way to remove existing uncited but plausibly WP:V material of unknown provenance—which often makes it harder for later editors to fill in the gaps of substance that are often created. Remsense ‥ 论 07:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Repeating my wish for a tool that would display each of the major additions throughout an article's history that have since been removed. I would make tough choices with much less dread if I knew it was easier for others to see and evaluate what is no longer in an article if they so choose. Remsense ‥ 论 08:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- My approach is similar to Doniago's. If it seems like a plausible and useful addition, I'll do a quick search to see if I can add a source myself (and sometimes succeed). I don't know about Huggle, but Twinkle lets you select Reverted good-faith edits, which is a bit gentler. Schazjmd (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)