[Discussion] New Editing Rule

Summary:

Between two lungs it was released ,the breath that carried me, the sigh that blew me forward

page 1 of 212next »

[Discussion] New Editing Rule

Uncle Nicolini 06 Aug 2024 00:21

O4 Mirror

Hello, people of the wiki.

I am proposing an edit be made to the Site Rules. I propose we add the following to Rule II.6:

Editing:
Replacing an existing article of yours with a new one that is not a rewrite without first deleting the page and reposting is against the rules.

EDIT

I forgot to include this in the original post, but this would obviously not ban people editing their pages for April Fools. Sorry for the ping everyone, just want to make sure we're all on the same page.

Thoughts, discussion, questions? Post them below.
Discussion will continue for 7 days.

Last edited on 06 Aug 2024 22:15 by Uncle Nicolini Show more

Re: [Discussion] New Editing Rule

DrEverettMann 06 Aug 2024 00:23

This feels like something that's only not part of the rules because we never thought it would be necessary. I give full support, obviously.

Re: [Discussion] New Editing Rule

DianaBerry 06 Aug 2024 00:26

Supporting. If you want to use a new slot for a different article, delete the old one.

Re: [Discussion] New Editing Rule

Celeste Etoile 06 Aug 2024 00:26

Echoing Mann on this.

I can't see any kind of good faith interpretation that allows you to replace one concept with another if it isn't a new post. Especially with how much of a defined process we have for rewriting other people's concepts. All of the votes for a given page are for that concept, you don't get to just replace it with something else because you're the original author of the page.

Re: [Discussion] New Editing Rule

leo60228 06 Aug 2024 00:27

This seems broadly reasonable, though the line between a heavily modified rewrite and a new article with a somewhat related concept seems blurry.

Re: [Discussion] New Editing Rule

DrLeviStarkin 06 Aug 2024 00:29

Full support for this. Common sense, in my opinion.

---

Levi Starkin

Re: [Discussion] New Editing Rule

FlyPurgatorio 06 Aug 2024 00:32

I have to be honest, I'm a bit surprised this needs to be spelled out.

Supporting. If the new article is not recognisable as the same in concept, core or sections, it needs to be an actual new post and not a past-over.

Last edited on 06 Aug 2024 00:32 by FlyPurgatorio Show more

Re: [Discussion] New Editing Rule

Kufat 06 Aug 2024 00:35

A few thoughts:

• Should we have guidelines for what would and wouldn't count as a rewrite as part of the rule? The Rewrite Guide is kind of vague on the subject, and I feel like that'd be a problem when it comes to telling users what are and aren't allowable changes for their own articles.
• Would this be a Disciplinary matter if Rewrite decided that a user broke this rule? Technically it'd be a form of vote manipulation, but unless a user was violating rules in other ways (e.g. using their old highly-rated articles for outright trolling) I don't think I'd want it to be a Disc matter. Which leads us to…
  • What would we do to the article if someone broke this rule? (Summary deletion or reverting and locking?)
• I do think the wording should be tweaked a bit for consistency with other rules in II.6.

I'm on board with the general concept. I do think it's thornier than it looks at first glance, though.

Last edited on 06 Aug 2024 01:05 by Kufat Show more

Re: [Discussion] New Editing Rule

Ethagon 11 Aug 2024 20:53

What would we do to the article if someone broke this rule?

I think this can just be handled like we handle other "edit violations" like tagging things that don't exist. Just revert it. Locking it makes sense depending on if it's likely they do it again or if a simple "this isn't allowed" is enough to make it a one-time thing.

Re: [Discussion] New Editing Rule

Prismal 12 Aug 2024 20:47

I think these are good things to consider. The rule is totally sensible in theory but we do need to think enforcement in practice.

I would suggest as Ethagon did that this be treated in a similar way to tagging violations.

Gets reverted and user gets told it's a no no, if the user keeps trying to do it then they get reprimanded with a kick or a ban once it gets to that point.

Re: [Discussion] New Editing Rule

Cicada3301Fan 06 Aug 2024 00:38

Makes absolute sense to me. Shocked it wasn’t a rule already. Support.

Re: [Discussion] New Editing Rule

PlaguePJP 06 Aug 2024 02:05

Support

page 1 of 212next »