It’s not so much another way of looking at it, but rather optimizing for different goals.
It sounds like your primary goal is the enthusiasm and retention of novice editors. That is a fantastic goal! Nobody will argue with that. Certainly not I.
But that’s only one of our goals. There are others. The three I stated were: convey the seriousness of what we are doing, answer the question “what did I do wrong” as quickly and clearly as possible, and provide wiki and moral support for advancing/responding editors.
The question is not which of these goals is correct. I am sure you don’t disagree with my goals any more than I disagree with yours.
The question is how we prioritize goals. But to prioritize properly, we need good metrics for map quality, driver satisfaction, and retention rates of both new and (!!!) advancing editors.
As far as I know we don’t have those metrics. Without them, I don’t know how we can prioritize among the different goals. Each one of us has to do what feels right.
(p.s. I want to emphasize the importance of supporting advancing editors as well as new editors. In my case, every senior and advancing editor I worked with in my immediate area when I started editing – nearly two years ago – has apparently quit. Supporting advancing editors can be a very different goal from supporting new editors.)
Like I said before, I like the page and the content - I think it is very relevant. My only thought was maybe just a little more nuance with the presentation, like you just did.
I know I personally don’t take, “You are wrong,” nearly as well as I can handle, “I think you might be wrong…” :roll: Subtle maybe; but just my thoughts.
I agree. Keep it simple and to the point, get the correct information out ASAP. Keep the other editor on your side. Reduce the risk of drama and cut to the chase.
The lead-in paragraphs of the article have been changed, with additional adjustments. Unless wiki functionality has changed recently, one will need to be logged into the wiki to see the changes, at least for some number of weeks.
Thanks very much indeed to those who pointed out the shortcomings in the previous language. You’ve helped improve the article for everybody who comes across it.
The Incorrect Edits article has been withdrawn from the Global Wiki. It is now a USA-only article. As a result, we must change the article title to include USA.
This is a great opportunity to revisit the name of this article. Though I originally named it “Incorrect Edits” I’ve never been especially happy with that title. At the time it seemed less negative than “Common Editing Mistakes”, but I’m not sure there’s really much difference.
Over time several editors have suggested a change in tone throughout to make this more of a quick-start guide for those looking to improve their skills than a simple list of not-to-do for those who have not yet digested (or possibly even seen) the full wiki. I’ve always resisted that, for reasons I’ve stated several times.
However, I am definitely open to changing the title to something more reassuring. Here are some thoughts off the top of my head.
Please note I am talking about the actual title that readers see at the top of the article. Of course any and all of these can be redirects, and at least one already is. The question here is the article’s primary title.
Common editing mistakes/USA (based on a phrase familiar to US editors).
Oops! Common editing mistakes/USA (more lighthearted)
Edits to avoid/USA
Incorrect edits/USA (existing title)
I currently lean towards #3 but am glad to consider alternatives.
When you do change the name, please leave all existing names and redirects inplace, and modify them to point to the new page. This way we don’t orphan any existing links or bookmarks people may be using.
This page has now been moved to “Edits to avoid (USA)”.
The move automatically generated a redirect from “Incorrect edits”, so no links were broken in this process.
I have updated a number of redirects to point directly to the new name. However, there are a number more outside the core wiki, including some in user spaces and others belonging to other countries, that I felt uncomfortable adjusting. These will still work of course, just with double redirection.
DL, great work keeping this page active and up to date.
What do you think about removing the construction template? IMO I think it is solid enough that you don’t need that template. If your objective is to give users a link to this forum, you can easily include a link in the opening paragraph.
An editor reading the following segment at the end of the Walking Trails section apparently may have understood this to mean “never delete complex efforts, even if they are noncompliant”:
I would like to clarify this with the following change:
Also, a minor change to the same section. The following wording has been the source of some confusion:
It never felt right to me to advise new editors that just one “very senior editor” could unilaterally require that wiki-violating Area Places be left permanently on the map for all editors and Wazers to see forever. But this person was adamant and had the highest possible community credentials, and nobody else seemed too concerned about it. Thus the language in Edits to Avoid.
I recently found that there have been some changes to who has what credentials, and I would like to revisit this part of Edits to Avoid. Instead of the following language…
…I would like to propose this language (no change to third paragraph):
Seems more or less reasonable. If the state or region has a policy different from the US policy posted on the places wiki page, it should be so stated in the state’s or region’s wiki page. Even if it refers the reader to the forum or some other resource.
Yes, that guidance is ambiguous, and the changes recommended above sound much better. (What, for example, is a “senior editor”? R6, or R5?)
I like conveying the notion that such changes should not be made without consultation with the editor involved in creating/editing that particular Place. We don’t need to be in a heated rush to make such changes, so consultation is good.
I agree. That section can probably be cut down. The current wording really does make it sound as though we have some very autocratic “very senior” editors. That would be a big negative for our community.
I thought about one-segment loops, and don’t think it really belongs in an “edits to avoid” page, as it is not easy (if it’s possible at all) to add one-segment loops.
