369:
216:, so as to notify the original contributor. Retain the part of the contribution that is acceptable, while giving an adequate edit summary: State the what is being removed and why, in order to meet your requirement for discussion in the edit summary, and invite the contributor to either refine and improve his contribution, or else re-submit it as-is, with a rebuttal in the edit summary that justifies his original assertion.
24:
60:
266:
In response to a dubious reversion in which the editor has given an insufficient reason, you may obvert, but you must answer the editor's objection in the edit summary, by stating why you hold it to be insufficient. Use the opportunity to refine your own contribution, if possible, and boldly submit
262:
In response to a competent reversion, in which the editor has given a sufficient reason in the edit summary, you must modify your contribution and submit a second draft. In the edit summary, respond to the editor's reason for the revert, so that adequate discussion and coordination can take place.
149:
If someone contributes a plausible but uncited claim, do the research! In the age of online information, you should take at least 20 seconds to do a web search before reverting. If the claim is justifiable, but you are too busy to afford the ~2 minutes necessary to justify it with a citation, then
105:
in continuously improving multiple drafts, with informative edit summaries which are dialectical responses to challenges or errors pointed out by deletionists who revert. A writer who persists through editorial reversions by obverting them, may use the edit summary field to meet the requirement of
258:
As a type of reversion, the same principles, guidelines, and warnings apply to obversion: do it only when necessary. If another competent editor has made a partial reversion, it is better to submit a second draft as a new contribution rather than as an obversion. That way, both editors will be
227:, and if you do, you must explain why. If partial revert or refinement isn't possible, and if you must do a complete revert, state the reason in the edit summary, so that the contributor can respond to your objections while making a case in discussion, as per
106:
discussion, instead of or prior to "talking" on the talk page. The writer should accompany their argument with multiple drafts of wikitext itself, progressively refined in response to competent editorial input. Also called
297:"Rf" refers to submitting a refined counter-proposal (if a refinement is self-explanatory, copy the wikitext itself into the edit summary, which will provide adequate justification of the refinement);
180:. Give the contributor time to justify the claim, at least a couple hours, and maybe even a couple days or weeks. Readers in the meantime will know that the claim is
204:
an imperfect but constructive contribution, consider doing nothing. Maybe someone else will do the research. In any case, the encyclopedia will survive without you.
313:
These outlines assume that justification is given at every Rv and Ob stage of refinement, or else either or both may be considered belligerent operations.
224:
282:
process. It will also help to set an example for other editors in consensus-building, and will protect you later from charges of edit-warring.
330:
39:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
274:
in the edit summary: you must answer by explaining why you are obverting, even if the reverter has failed to do so. This demonstrates a
232:
40:
343:
BoRvOb De (Good, if done appropriately. If you are unsure whether to obvert though, it is best to go with one of the other options.)
243:, as it increases friction, discourages newcomers, and reduces the overall quality of the encyclopedia and pleasure of editing it.
323:
BoTp Rv (Good but uncommon. This is Bold-Discuss-Revert, and the vandal fighters ought to be required to do this with newbies)
212:
If during this process, you intend to remove substantive assertions that amount to a change in meaning, it is better to use a
76:
to craft good articles, while building consensus and trust through demonstration of competence. Seeks consensus to replace
271:
142:
contribution that may be incomplete, poorly worded, or unreferenced, consider how you can preserve the good content and
417:
306:"De" means "deliver", meaning the point at which a continuously-improving encyclopedia is delivered to readers; and
143:
119:
154:
236:
122:
to the readers, while refining ourselves as scholars and learners who read what each other writes. Every
252:
240:
102:
88:
84:
44:
32:
244:
213:
396:
139:
81:
77:
352:
BoRvObRvOb Rf, Tp, or De (All acceptable ways of drafting and advancing discussion, but...)
194:
184:
174:
401:
337:
275:
228:
164:
146:. Try to refine the bold edit by copyediting, finding references, or adding material.
80:
as a recommendation, and proposes a preventive strategy favoring
Refinement and enables
368:
411:
47:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
235:. Refusal to address the substantive content question in a revert summary, is
279:
231:. The reversion must itself be a form of "discussion", else it is mere
130:
second: someone who is willing to teaching what he or she knows.
111:
126:
should be reader-student first: someone who enjoys learning, and
340:, when it results in consensus and someone is able to deliver.)
363:
101:
process is the ideal collaborative writing cycle, which seeks
54:
18:
68:
Clarifies a method of collaborative drafting that helps
380:
329:
BoRv Tp (Not bad, but not good. This is how we often
309:"Tp" refers to discussion happening on the talk page.
404:, other options for good faith dispute resolution
290:In the below descriptions of editing processes,
333:, and sometimes get paralysed in discussion.)
8:
239:laziness, which is sufficient grounds for
355:Beyond this is edit war, which is not ok.
190:, and if you ask, maybe one of them will
41:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
259:working together in a productive way.
200:. If you are unable or unwilling to
7:
247:: Don't revert with no explanation.
87:, in order to overcome unjustified
45:thoroughly vetted by the community
14:
360:Editorial opinions and commentary
349:BoRvObRf Tp (Advanced discussion)
331:bite the newcomers (please don't)
367:
58:
22:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
160:template. Or ask the question
134:How to refine: Do the research
103:WP:Consensus § Through editing
1:
225:WP:Revert only when necessary
220:Explain why you are reverting
110:, because the emphasis is on
303:"Ob" refers to an obversion;
300:"Rv" refers to a reversion;
294:"Bo" refers to a bold edit;
434:
286:Possible editing processes
270:Either way, you must give
233:wp:status quo stonewalling
336:BoRvTp De (Good. This is
320:Bo Tp (Good but uncommon)
118:a continuously improving
66:This page in a nutshell:
418:Knowledge (XXG) essays
278:effort to engage in a
208:Dialectical refinement
317:Bo De (Presumed good)
43:, as it has not been
346:BoRvObRf De (Better)
326:BoRfRf... De (best)
108:Bold-Refine-Deliver
379:. You can help by
388:
387:
214:Partial reversion
138:In response to a
128:researcher-writer
95:
94:
53:
52:
425:
371:
364:
267:a second draft.
199:
193:
189:
183:
179:
173:
169:
163:
159:
153:
144:WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM
62:
61:
55:
26:
25:
19:
433:
432:
428:
427:
426:
424:
423:
422:
408:
407:
393:
384:
377:needs expansion
362:
288:
256:
222:
210:
197:
191:
187:
181:
177:
171:
167:
161:
157:
155:citation needed
151:
136:
120:WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA
59:
49:
48:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
431:
429:
421:
420:
410:
409:
406:
405:
399:
397:Editing policy
392:
389:
386:
385:
374:
372:
361:
358:
357:
356:
353:
350:
347:
344:
341:
334:
327:
324:
321:
318:
311:
310:
307:
304:
301:
298:
295:
287:
284:
255:
249:
221:
218:
209:
206:
135:
132:
93:
92:
63:
51:
50:
38:
37:
29:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
430:
419:
416:
415:
413:
403:
400:
398:
395:
394:
390:
382:
378:
375:This section
373:
370:
366:
365:
359:
354:
351:
348:
345:
342:
339:
335:
332:
328:
325:
322:
319:
316:
315:
314:
308:
305:
302:
299:
296:
293:
292:
291:
285:
283:
281:
277:
273:
272:justification
268:
264:
260:
254:
250:
248:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
219:
217:
215:
207:
205:
203:
196:
186:
176:
166:
156:
150:simply add a
147:
145:
141:
133:
131:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
104:
100:
90:
89:wp:reversions
86:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
64:
57:
56:
46:
42:
36:
34:
28:
21:
20:
381:adding to it
376:
312:
289:
269:
265:
261:
257:
223:
211:
201:
148:
137:
127:
123:
115:
107:
98:
96:
85:wp:obversion
73:
70:contributors
69:
65:
30:
237:tendentious
99:Bold-Refine
31:This is an
276:good-faith
116:Delivering
112:final goal
280:dialectic
241:obversion
412:Category
391:See also
245:WP:DRWNE
251:How to
195:clarify
185:dubious
140:WP:Bold
82:wp:Bold
78:WP:BRDR
74:writers
402:WP:BRB
338:WP:BRD
253:obvert
229:WP:BRD
202:refine
175:where?
124:editor
170:, or
33:essay
165:who?
97:The
72:and
114:of
414::
198:}}
192:{{
188:}}
182:{{
178:}}
172:{{
168:}}
162:{{
158:}}
152:{{
383:.
91:.
35:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.