Wikipedia talk:Communication is required

Formal boards

I feel like there are mixed messages in this section. On one hand, it's emphasized that editors do not have to participate in noticeboards discussions about them. But, in the last sentences, it implies there can be dire results if one refuses to participate which undermines the big not at the beginning. Can it be less ominous and instead encourage editors to participate but say that it is not required? I found in writing that it is often good to lead with the point we want to make (that editors should engage!) and then mention the caveat that they are not required to after that statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have made some changes to this section; does they help address your concerns (which echo mine)? isaacl (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There is discussion on my talk page about rewriting that paragraph a bit. isaacl raised similar points. My style of writing tends to be to blurt out the main points and clean it up later, so no offense is taken if someone does. I do think we need to be a bit ominous in this section so readers don't get the message that they can safely ignore the formal boards. They aren't obligated, but it may have bad consequences. If you have ideas on rewriting, by all means, feel free to fix it. We can still tweak it from there if needed. I'm not one to "own" essays or articles, I love to see the collaboration and compromise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

Regarding this edit: I appreciate it expands on the origin of the word, but in the interest of avoiding too much digression from the purpose of this essay, I suggest that it isn't needed. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• I was thinking the same thing. The same for an earlier edit. To me, I think we serve this particular audience best if we keep the essay short, pithy and in a tight scope. It is important they read all of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• The more I look at it, the more I want to try to keep it under 5000 characters. That makes it essentially a single page of paper, more or less. We don't need to give instructions, only explain the consequences. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If there are no further comments, I will proceed with removing the etymology of "wiki". isaacl (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have implemented the change; I kept the hyperlink to "Wiki" so the etymology can be found there. isaacl (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Looks good. I would like to see some other trims without losing meaning if we can. I'm getting over a stomach bug (which is why I've been grumpy since Wed) and can maybe get to it eventually, but if you see any redundant redundancies that need deredundentification, feel free :) I'm thinking around 5k is around right. I think the new photo is also good, and I'm open to changing the others. I think the third is pretty good, classic 70s style, but anything else that conveys the same message is fine with me. The goal is short, simply, likely to get read. Thanks to all for the help! Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Maybe some things can go into footnotes. For example, the recent change regarding vandalism: if you're modifying content, you can't really tell if the next person's reversion is vandalism or an objection. The scenario that was raised is if you have reverted vandalism, and someone is restoring it. But trying to enumerate all the possibilities may be more complicated than needed; this is after all an explanatory essay, rather than a precise procedure to follow. I'll give it some more thought and see what trims may be possible. isaacl (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't really want to get into instructions. Really, it is an essay of persuasion, with the goal being simply put "Either communicate when it is needed, or only do things that are so uncontroversial that you don't need to communicate (ie: don't revert anyone)". It is to coax them a bit to talk mainly. Instead of people trying to explain on their talk page, they can link here. Look, some people are NOT going to talk. They can't communicate with others, they just aren't well socialized. Oddly enough, Wikipedia appeals to people like that and with other similar mental situations. Some just WON'T communicate, but I don't want to lose their contributions and they don't want to lose their outlet, so they need a choice. Let's remember that fear is often the reason. This is why I want it short enough that they are likely to actually read it, and simple enough anyone can understand it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, in the interest of conciseness, I have now completely removed the reference to the origins of Wikis. Although interesting, it isn't really needed to understand why communication is required. isaacl (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A couple of passing comments

I don't normally do this kind of thing, but I have a few thoughts on your essay:

• Reverting: Where you say "you must go to the talk page" I think it should be "should go to the talk page" (particularly as "must" implies policy) possibly with the caveats "unless the reversion was clear vandalism or an indisputable mistake". If someone reverts you, it's not always the case that the reversion was correct and leaving the reverted text there and having to go to the talk page is not particularly helpful! For example, in the past, I have reverted vandalism and then been accidentally reverted by someone else (who didn't notice). I must therefore start a discussion? :)
• Slow motion edit warring: This section implies again that you (the essay's reader) are the person in the wrong. The last sentence says "You are obligated to start a discussion on the talk page instead of continuing to revert, or you can say nothing and leave the other's edit alone." - well, what if you have started a discussion and the other person is still (slowly) reverting you and that person is the one not engaging? Do you simply stop reverting in all cases? I think alternative options should be suggested in this section.

I guess what I am saying is that the supposition in the essay in a couple of places is that "you are always doing something wrong" when reverting. Thanks for considering the above, Stephenb (Talk) 11:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Good points, Stephenb. I'm implementing the first few, softened the wording on the other. Trying to keep the essay short and sometimes you just have to explain things better, so thanks for the tips, and don't hesitate to clean up and explain better if you feel like it, it's as much your essay as mine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As I discussed above, I don't think the modifications you made really covers the vandalism scenario. However, in the interest of keeping the essay concise and since I don't believe the target audience as you described it will be confused by the vandalism case, perhaps the mention of vandalism can be removed or moved to a footnote? isaacl (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I think saying "and their edit isn't vandalism", we are just using it as a qualifier. Not sure we need to touch on vandalism other than letting them know that we AREN'T talking about reverting vandals, but reverting good faith stuff. In reality, we don't want people who won't talk reverting vandals anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Unless there's already a consensus in place for your edit, there's no way to define the other person's revert as vandalism: it's just part of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. The comment was regarding restoring your removal of vandalism, but the sentence in question isn't about that. Perhaps I can edit the text to exempt edits made with consensus, but my question is if this is really needed; is the context clear enough that reverting vandalism isn't the topic of discussion? isaacl (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I tightened up the one part, but I think the one use of "vandalism" is ok as it is, unless I'm just missing some bigger point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
          • The current sentence starts If you are changing content, either by adding or removing information, and someone reverts you and their edit isn't vandalism.... By definition, if a consensus has not already been established for your edit, the revert cannot be vandalism—an edit intended to deliberately harm Wikipedia: it is just part two of the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle. So it's redundant to say "and their edit isn't vandalism". So I suggest dropping the clause "and their edit isn't vandalism". Alternatively, the sentence could be changed to If you are changing a page's content (and not simply reverting vandalism), and someone reverts you.... isaacl (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
            • • There we go, that is better. I just wanted to have the exclusion, and that frames it better anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Slow edit wars

Regarding this edit: I had removed the mention of specific gaps between reversions, since this is redundant with the clause, "even if it is within the limits of the three revert rule". What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• That whole section could probably be worded a bit more fluidly, but I agree with the revert. We don't want to over-explain, just give a simple overview. Since this isn't a policy, I don't foresee someone trying to wikilawyer around provisions here, so absolute precision isn't nearly as important as getting the general message across. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what version to you support: are you saying you agree with the current version (leaving aside its grammatical issues), which is a partial reversion of my change and added an additional explanation beyond an overview? isaacl (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Your last version. The addition afterwords is too wordy. The whole sentence still needs a little cleaning tho. The whole "Slow-motion edit warring" is ok, but not perfect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
      • How about If you regularly restore your edits to a page without consensus, even within the limits of the three revert rule, you are edit warring. You are obligated to start a discussion on the talk page instead of continuing to revert, or you can stop changing the page. isaacl (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Maybe better, but still not the flow and clarity I'm looking for. I'm swamped for a couple days, I need to think on it. Of course, that should stop anyone from jumping in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
          • How about: If you regularly restore your edits to a page without consensus, even within the limits of the three revert rule, you are edit warring. Either stop restoring your edits, or start a discussion on the talk page to establish consensus. isaacl (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
            • OK, I'll give this wording a test run. Of course if anyone has any feedback, please chime in. isaacl (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Something on the use of edit summaries should be added

There needs to be something added to this essay about how use of edit summaries is actually part of "Communication is required". For example, I just saw a "disruptive editing" conflict that didn't need to happen because the original editor failed to use edit summaries to explain what they were trying to do.

So I think something about (proper) use of edit summaries should be added to this. (I'm just not sure where or how...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I have kind of mixed feelings about that, as at present this essay is more about engaging in conversation when someone wants to discuss a matter. The community has deemed by consensus that edit summaries don't have to be mandated for most scenarios (though reverts is probably an area where not using any edit summary might get you into trouble), and discussions should be held on talk pages, not in edit summaries. My personal preference would be to keep this essay focused on the need to discuss issues when disagreements occur. isaacl (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The essay's not "use the Talk page to discuss" – it's "Communication is required". That goes beyond just using talk pages – it goes to all of the ways editors need to communicate with each other. That includes edit summaries. This is an essay, so it wouldn't "mandate" use of edit summaries. But an essay entitled "Communication is required" should encourage edit summary use as a component of that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand that's what you want to make it about, and of course it could be extended that way. Nonetheless, as you can see by reading the nutshell summary, the entire article, and Dennis's comments above, his intent was to write an essay to coax people to engage in discussion when necessary. He deliberately wanted to keep it short and focused on that goal. I apologies for being unclear: I did not mean to imply the essay would mandate the use of edit summaries. I was only saying that since community consensus is that edit summaries are not necessary under most circumstances, it's tricky to fit their use under a "communication is required" rubric. I agree their use should be encouraged, and they can help stave off misunderstandings. There is Wikipedia:Editing policy#Be helpful: explain that can be pointed to as existing policy. isaacl (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)