Merely stating the discussion is lame is frequently not sufficient every opposing statement must be denied with increasingly vehement assertions of the lameness. What's the fun in that? It is essential that as many editors as possible chime in, not adding to the discussion at hand but pointing, LOL, and lamely commenting about how lame it is and how it's a big waste of time (See Self-fulfilling prophecy, Positive feedback, and Exponential growth). Left to its own devices, the discussion might inadvertently become useful. Upon coming across a discussion that is borderline lame, some Wikipedians may be tempted to go do something useful. Some discussions are born lame some achieve lameness some have lameness thrust upon them. Rather, it illustrates standards or conduct that are generally not accepted by the Wikipedia community. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline. On the other hand, nobody gets dispatched (so far!). It has changed them from actually getting done to never getting done. Truly, the revolutionary Wikipedia outlook has changed the way things get done. In modern times, physical combat has been outlawed and replaced by the careful citing of personal attacks, strategic 3RR templating and canvassing, timely notices on WP:AN/I, accusations of incompetence, and (in some cases) marking the changes as a minor edit. In some earlier instances of edit warring, dating back from before the good old days, participants would simply brandish their swords and fight a battle, or later, their guns and fight a duel. A careful and scholarly study of available archeological evidence has even suggested that edit wars may have recurred on a regular basis going back all the way to the beginning of recorded history, even before the advent of proper writing circa 2001 C.E. It isn't comprehensive or authoritative, but it serves as a showcase of situations where people lose sight of the big picture and obsessively expend huge amounts of energy fighting over something that, in the end, isn't really so important.Įdit warring is believed by some to be important, possibly due to the historical regularity and frequency of the occurrence of these wars. Occasionally, even experienced Wikipedians lose their heads and devote every waking moment to edit warring over the most trivial thing, wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or wrestling over questions whose answers hold no practical consequence. Note that some editors are fighting in groups of two people or more, and note the large number of casualties. Two editors are seen personally attacking one another near the bottom left. A very lame edit war, started by the addition of one sentence, taking place. Soon a referee will pull them apart and decide their fates at WP:AN3. Two editors at each other's throats, while engaging in an edit war. At her feet, three bewildered newcomers are seen caught in the middle of the dispute. What mighty contests rise from trivial thingsĪn unidentified clerk (centre) tries to bring an end to a great edit war involving dozens of respected editors.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |