98:. This particular problem rarely comes from vandals; in fact, some vandals write very honest edit summaries, such as "blanking the page", "replacing the page with crap" or bizarre or offensive statements. Though sometimes automatic edit summaries will betray the intent of the vandal when the vandal writes a misleading edit summary; but as automatic edit summaries are done by a robot, vandals can figure out ways to mislead the robot as well.
24:
222:
edit summary that just says "reverting vandalism" should be an even bigger red flag than "removing trivia". As a compromise between accurate edit summaries and denying vandals the satisfaction of acknowledgement, the developers have programmed
Knowledge to provide a default edit summary for undoing vandalism along the lines of:
80:
238:
the lines of "to my liking, rather than to the misguided consensus." Similarly, but to a lesser degree, it goes without saying that an edit summary that isn't adding something should be fixing something, so "fixing" is often a sign of novice editors whose actions should be reviewed, or of vandals trying to cover their tracks.
246:
This can happen either maliciously or innocently. A malicious use would be to include or delete a large chunk of text but pass it off as spelling corrections. But it can also happen innocently, such as when someone uses mass replace to expand abbreviations, or to create abbreviations. If you use mass
228:
Anti-vandalism bots give similar edit summaries, also avoiding use of the word "vandal" or "vandalism". To see that word used in an edit summary most likely signals an attempt at deception: such an editor is hoping that those who would question a removal of "trivia" would not check up on a removal of
221:
Don't get me wrong, vandalism is still a problem on
Knowledge. But it is much more of a mild annoyance, and not a significant threat to Knowledge's credibility anymore. There never was any disagreement that vandalism is bad and should be reverted, compared to the great disagreement over trivia. So an
184:
The exception here is for unverified information about living persons. Other than that, unverified and/or poorly spelled or worded content can and should remain in
Knowledge so that if someone better equipped to verify it, spell-check it or reword it comes along, they can do so without having to dig
255:
Robots can be exempted from saying in edit summaries what the tags that were applied are. But people should be held to a higher standard when it comes to tagging. By actually saying what the tags are in the edit summary, it shows other editors that you actually gave some thought to what the tags say
139:
There are several problems with this, the first being that not everyone agrees on what constitutes trivia. When someone "deletes trivia", without giving any more specific explanation, it is possible that they're trying to skirt consensus and remove facts which most other editors agree belong and are
105:
Let it be clear that indiscriminate inclusionism is not being advocated. Knowledge is not a "dumping ground" for random facts and thoughts. But indiscriminate deletionism is even more of a problem, because it makes it harder for the community to have calm, thoughtful discussions as to what belongs
237:
If an edit is not vandalism, then it should be an improvement to the article. Using the word "improving" therefore just wastes edit summary characters, and an edit summary only has a few more characters than a tweet. Also, one should suspect that there should be more to such an edit summary, along
148:
Let's get some perspective on trivia. Originally, there was the "trivium", which consisted of grammar, logic and rhetoric; and the quadrivium, which consisted of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. The trivium was supposed to be easier than the quadrivium, and eventually the word "trivial"
164:
Instead of using a vague, yet loaded word, like "trivia", it would be more productive to expend just a few more keystrokes explaining what was actually done. For example, an article quotes a letter from
Charles Darwin, and someone removes it, instead of just putting "Deleting trivia" in the edit
208:
Another red flag is if an editor states that changes must be discussed, but the issue itself is not raised on the talk page (note: this editor may have raised the issue in an archived discussion). If someone is going to demand that others discuss on the talk page before making any changes to an
175:
A patroller should check first that the deleted section really was trivia, and second, that there was a better reason for deleting it, such as it being irrelevant to the article. A common target for this are "In popular culture" sections. Again, Knowledge policy provides guidelines for rescuing
101:
This problem with edit summaries often comes from established users who want to push their own POVs (points of view). Also, there are well-meaning users who unintentionally write misleading edit summaries. For example, an editor may make huge changes to the article but summarize this as "tweak
152:
What is unimportant? And to what is something unimportant? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the only thing that matters is survival. I'm not the only one who thinks
Knowledge should not be used for medical diagnosis, nor for operating a nuclear reactor. From this point of view, then
144:
state that the colour of the napkins had some important symbolism, then reporting the colour of the napkins and giving a quick sense of the commentary regarding this hue may be pertinent to the reader.
161:
But surely also I'm not the only person who thinks
Knowledge content should not be deleted, even if it can't be used as a reference in hospital surgeries and nuclear power plants.
88:
Weasel words as well as POV can occur in edit summaries, too. The author(s) of this essay believe that writing NPOV edit summaries is as essential as in the articles themselves.
102:
format". Hence, the kinds of edit summaries discussed here should encourage a look at the actual edit regardless of whether or not they come from established users.
213:
as an edit summary, a discussion should be started immediately by the person indicating such, and ideally the section should be linked in this same edit summary.
172:, which provides ways to deal with information that might be relevant to the article but is currently presented as if it were a collection of random factoids.
282:
268:
It is common for novice, questionable and bogus edits to have a summary phrased in the first person. Normally one would omit the first person pronoun.
165:
summary, it would be far better to put "Deleting long Darwin letter because it adds too much detail that is not directly relevant to this article."
277:
132:
On the face of it, that sounds good. "Deleting trivia." Deleting the unimportant, the inconsequential. The colour of the napkins at a
39:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
40:
141:
297:
209:
article, fairness demands that she too discuss it on the talk page. I.e., if one is going to use something like
205:, not the original writer, not the editors who have worked the most on the article, and not even Jimbo Wales.
189:
says: "Fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't." For most unverified information, use a fact tag. See
44:
186:
54:
257:
169:
32:
121:
225:"Undid revision 0123456789 by User:ABCDEFGH to version 0123456788 by User:Example_One"
291:
210:
202:
190:
47:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
180:
Edit summary: "Removing this until it can be verified/spellchecked/reworded, etc."
140:
relevant to the article in question. Depending on the wedding in question, if
133:
242:
Edit marked as minor with a large increase or decrease in size in kilobytes
116:
Nothing a typical person would only expect in a specialized reference work.
247:
replace in an edit, it wouldn't hurt for your edit summary to mention it!
197:
Edit summary: "Reverting, discuss on the talk page before making changes"
113:
Everything a typical person would expect in a general reference work, and
260:
for advice on choosing the most specific tag for a given problem.
251:
Edit summary mentions tagging but doesn't say what the tags are
74:
18:
94:
Anyone who patrols recent changes should watch out for
62:
149:
came to mean, through semantic drift: "unimportant."
193:
for more information on flagging unverified content.
256:and that they really do apply to the article. See
233:Edit summary starts with "Improving" or "Fixing"
120:For more general advice on edit summaries, see
8:
109:One view is that Knowledge should contain:
283:Knowledge:Red flags of copyright violation
185:in the article history. Remember what
278:Knowledge:Red flags of non-notability
250:
176:suitable content from such sections.
7:
217:Edit summary: "Reverting vandalism"
157:Everything in Knowledge is trivial!
168:Note that Knowledge has a policy,
45:thoroughly vetted by the community
41:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
14:
78:
22:
128:Edit summary: "Deleting trivia"
203:no one owns Knowledge articles
1:
264:Edit summary starts with "I"
96:red flags in edit summaries
314:
52:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge
86:This page in a nutshell:
201:This is a red flag, as
43:, as it has not been
142:WP:reliable sources
106:and what doesn't.
92:
91:
73:
72:
305:
298:Knowledge essays
82:
81:
75:
65:
26:
25:
19:
313:
312:
308:
307:
306:
304:
303:
302:
288:
287:
274:
266:
253:
244:
235:
219:
199:
182:
159:
158:
130:
79:
69:
68:
61:
57:
49:
48:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
311:
309:
301:
300:
290:
289:
286:
285:
280:
273:
270:
265:
262:
252:
249:
243:
240:
234:
231:
218:
215:
198:
195:
181:
178:
156:
155:
129:
126:
118:
117:
114:
90:
89:
83:
71:
70:
67:
66:
58:
53:
50:
38:
37:
29:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
310:
299:
296:
295:
293:
284:
281:
279:
276:
275:
271:
269:
263:
261:
259:
248:
241:
239:
232:
230:
229:"vandalism".
226:
223:
216:
214:
212:
206:
204:
196:
194:
192:
191:Template:Fact
188:
179:
177:
173:
171:
166:
162:
154:
150:
146:
143:
137:
135:
127:
125:
123:
115:
112:
111:
110:
107:
103:
99:
97:
87:
84:
77:
76:
64:
60:
59:
56:
51:
46:
42:
36:
34:
28:
21:
20:
267:
254:
245:
236:
227:
224:
220:
207:
200:
183:
174:
167:
163:
160:
151:
147:
138:
131:
119:
108:
104:
100:
95:
93:
85:
30:
187:WP:PRESERVE
31:This is an
258:WP:RESPTAG
170:WP:TRIVIA
136:wedding.
134:celebrity
292:Category
272:See also
122:WP:EDSUM
55:Shortcut
63:WP:RFES
211:WP:BRD
33:essay
294::
124:.
35:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.