Edit warring
From RationalWikiWiki
Edit warring is repeatedly, persistently changing a particular part of a page over the objections of someone else. This results in volleying between revisions, with one (or more) editor(s) changing something and another (set of) editor(s) undoing the change. Those who engage in it are called edit warriors. It irritates RationalWikans.
There is no real way to prevent edit warring if two or more editors refuse to discuss or compromise; there will be edit wars. Attempts to address the problem by relying on sysops' powers (such as Wikipedia's infamous "Three-revert rule", wherein the article in question is locked and/or the edit warriors blocked temporarily after three volleys over the same part) aggravate feelings and fail even as a method at stimulating the edit warriors to negotiate.
Incrementalist cockroaches have learned patience in 250 million years. Our simple solution is to write the title of the article in a notebook and make the edit five months later when the other guy is gone.
Contents |
[edit] Notable edit wars
[edit] New World order
See the main article on this topic: New World Order article
Elassint and human edit-warred over the NWO article. [1] Ryan later joined in. [2] PFoster was another participant. [3]
[edit] Eve
In October 2011, there was a edit war over the content of the Eve article. New editor HiedelbergKid rewrote the article and nominated it for silver. This attracted the attention of Weaseloid and WaitingforGodot who proceeded to rewrite the article stating it relied far too much on lame jokes and was incoherent. Various editors joined in the fun, and soon a talkpage debate was in full swing. [4]. HbKid then created a version of the article in essay space. [5] He/she also began asking for help on the saloon bar.[6], and have considered setting up a fork of RW over the issue. [7] This is, as far as we know, the greatest reaction on RW to someone changing an article.
