CZ:Proposals/Change to reversion policy
This proposal has been assigned to the Constabulary, and is now in the Constabulary proposals queue.
Complete explanation
Edit CZ:Professionalism#Reversion and deletion as unprofessional behaviors to emphasize that it is the lack of explanation which is the offence, not the mere act of reverting or deleting others' work. Raise the limit on removal from 50 words to about 100 words or 1kb.
Reasoning
Citizendium authors are not nearly so bold about existing articles as Wikipedia authors are; and I believe that the existing wording in the professionalism policy is partially responsible. I believe that if it were made clear that large edits, including those which wipe out significant parts of other people's work, are acceptable, provided they are discussed, that authors here will feel less inhibition about improving existing articles.
Wikipedia describes its process as "bold, revert, discuss". This leads to edit wars. Citizendium's process should be "bold, discuss." and "revert, discuss." People should not be discouraged from making large changes, unless they consistently make bad changes. Discussion should be encouraged, and required for larger changes.
Raising the word limit will make it easier for knowledgeable authors to replace low quality micro-stubs with more fleshed-out articles without having to worry about violating rules or having to present a detailed rationale when the work speaks for itself. (Of course, if the work doesn't speak for itself, it should be discussed anyway, but someone else can start that discussion.)
Implementation
- Create and discuss detailed rewording of CZ:Professionalism#Reversion and deletion as unprofessional behaviors
- Adopt revised wording (requires Editorial Council?)
- Edit CZ:Professionalism#Reversion and deletion as unprofessional behaviors to reflect new policy
Discussion
Excellent use of the system, Anthony, thanks. Personally, I think this is almost a trivial change, but it's worth discussing.
Since this concerns CZ:Professionalism, the decisionmaking group is the Constabulary. I think that they'll simply take whatever the community recommends on this. Go ahead and draft the new language, Anthony, and send it off to the constables. --Larry Sanger 14:58, 13 February 2008 (CST)
I presume, Larry, that when you say "almost a trivial change" you actually mean that it seems so self-evident that it should not require a proposal? I support this proposal, Anthony. However, for the record, I'd like to say that I do not believe this is the most significant reason for the apparent lack of "boldness" exhibited by CZ authors. I think our lack of anonymity (which I strongly support, before anyone starts) and the potential for public ridicule and public conflict caused by the transparent nature of wiki editing, would have more of an inhibiting impact. Aleta Curry 15:57, 13 February 2008 (CST)
- Aleta - I think that you may be right, but like you, I don't want to change the lack of anonymity, as it has too many valuable benefits. I'm not even sure this is the most significant reason that can be fixed without breaking Citizendium for the lack of boldness, but I do think it is a reason. (Actually, I think that the lack of coherence in policy pages is a significant reason; however, that's being addressed elsewhere.) Anthony Argyriou 17:18, 13 February 2008 (CST)
I've added my proposed revision below. Anthony Argyriou 17:18, 13 February 2008 (CST)
Proposed revision
Original text of the section is:
Reversion and deletion as unprofessional behaviors
To "revert" a page is simply to undo all the edits that someone else has made. Doing so without warning or explanation is unprofessional because it demonstrates contempt for the person whose work was undone. If I spend ten minutes working on a page, and you simply undo my changes, you render my time spent pointless--which is tantamount to the claim that I spend significant time doing pointless things, and that your judgment is so superior to mine that you need not offer an explanation. Therefore, if you're tempted simply to revert what someone else has done, discussion on the talk page is warranted. Indeed, sometimes the polite way is to let the other person undo his or her own work, once a mistake is pointed out.
Of course, vandalism and egregious abuse can be instantly reverted (without explanation) by anyone. Explanation is preferred even in such cases, however.
If you find yourself the "victim" of an unexplained reversion, the best way forward is not to revert back, but to e-mail constables@citizendium.org--and let the constables do it. This will not only solve the problem, it will help ensure that the offending behavior is not repeated.
Wikipedians note: the Wikipedia "three revert rule" is not in effect here.
Similarly, deletion of others' work without explanation is clearly unprofessional, and deletion of more than 50 words can result in a warning, followed by a ban. Again, for you to delete, without a careful explanation, a paragraph--or article--that I have carefully crafted is essentially to assert that my work was wholly worthless, and that your judgment is so much more refined than mine that I am not owed an explanation. Your aggressive act places me into a defensive and hurt posture.
That just isn't professional behavior--something you don't have to be a professional to recognize.
- Proposed new text:
Reversion and deletion as unprofessional behaviors
Professionals collaborating on a project don't undo each others' work without explaining what they are doing. Accordingly, any reversion or significant deletion of someone else's work on Citizendium must be explained.
- In cases of vandalism, egregious abuse, or obvious mistake, a simple statement to that effect in the edit summary is sufficient.
- In any other case, please leave a polite note on the article talk page explaining what you've done, and why.
Deletion of more than 50 consecutive words, or more than 1kb of material, without an explanation, can result in a warning, followed by a ban.
If your work has been removed or deleted, your options depend on the circumstances. First[, make an honest and objective evaluation] - do you think the change is an improvement to the article? Try [not] to be too invested in what you contributed, but think of the overall good of the project. If you think something important has been lost, look at the talk page. If there's an explanation, engage the person who made the change. Explain why you think the material removed was important, or where it could best be restored. Come to a consensus before restoring the work, however. If there is an explanation, but only in an edit summary, and you disagree or don't understand, start the discussion on the article's talk page. [Do not leave an angry, resentful attack on the editing author's usertalk page.]
If there is no explanation for the removal of your work, e-mail the Constabulary at constables@citizendium.org -- and let the constables handle it. This will not only solve the problem, it will help ensure that the offending behavior is not repeated.
- Hi Anthony. I like this very much. I have made a couple of suggestions directly into the text, so they can clearly be seen (and easily removed if necessary).
- One thing that got lost in translation: I liked the "folksy" feel of the original narrative, to wit, "you do this to me and I feel defensive and hurt by it because". That manner of writing is very direct and resonates with people at a primal level. Is there a way this can be added in--maybe as a note or explanation below so as not to ruin the flow of your new text?
- Aleta Curry 19:01, 13 February 2008 (CST)
An explanation in the edit summary should suffice. Stephen Ewen 20:20, 13 February 2008 (CST)
| Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only) | |
|
Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank):
|