>in the area I was trying to contribute (a math subdomain) to there is sooooo much technical misinformation. but if you don't have an intimate knowledge of all the details of the editing bylaws, and seemingly infinite time to be able to litigate your case, it's almost impossible to get any of these edits through when the original page author is sufficiently motivated to prevent them.

As someone that has battled with this, I agree, but in my experience more often than not, the people that complain are complaining about basic rules like "stuff should have external citations". So I can't really pick either side.

▲

postflopclarity 2 days ago | parent [-]

I think one of the last straws for me before I quit trying to help is when I "lost" some disputed edit (and the page was subsequently locked) because the original author provided an external citation for their claim.

The problem was, if you actually go read the content being cited, it did not at all conclude what the page author was asserting it did. In fact, it concluded the opposite. So the citation was "real" but the way it was being used with the implication that it supported the author's position was pure misinformation.

I tried to point this out and petitioned to unlock the page, but I was told that "consensus has been reached, and edit warring will not be tolerated" ...

▲

TZubiri a day ago | parent [-]

Oh, it does seem like you got way farther than just editing something without a source.

It's not easy to make a contended edit, especially against a more experienced editor.

Here's a few tips:

1- Don't focus so much on the edit, but focus on the discussion page. As mentioned, edit warring is a no-no.

The core of edit warring is the 3RV rule, so if you must discuss through edits, space them out over time to avoid 3RV over 24 hours. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_thr...)

The rule is biased towards change, so whoever makes the first edit, will hold the advantage in terms of punitive action. However, you may invoke a request for someone else to revert to the last stable version.

2- In general there is a lot of policy to read, but that goes for any tool worth using no? And it's what provides some sort of stability to the whole project.

Wikipedia is a computer system like any other, but some code may be enforced by humans (bureocrats). You just have to learn the code if you want to edit, the expectation that it would be easy to edit wikipedia was actually true in the begginning, but as it grows larger, it will prioritize stability over growth and make editing harder.

Also, you can see my unpublished essay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TZubiri/sandbox#Wikipedia...

It's outdated, I'd have to clarify on the punitive offensive bias and the modern content defensive bias. At the time I didn't have a clear understanding of the RVV (or it may have been different).

But the idea of a slower, edit based discussion is there.

3- Tags are a powerful tool, as powerful as policies and guidelines. They are much more succint, and do not require so much effort on your part. Consider the WP:FV tag

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Taggin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Failed_verification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_fai...

If you just apply the tag (or ask someone else to apply the tag), you expend almost 0 effort, but are backed by a custom so big and common that it merited the creation of a tag. No need to link to policy, its presence is self evident and self explanatory.

It also doesn't delete the content, and doesn't count as a reversal, it progresses the state of the article, if it goes uncontested for a couple of days, you can then proceed with removal much more safely. Even if it doesn't, it's not a bad result if someone makes a claim and it has a {{failed verification}} tag, the existence of their position is clarified, but it is weakened, which is in line with the WP policy of Documenting the controversy and letting the facts speak for themselves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Let_the_facts_speak_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_%22teach_the...

Feel free to ask for help in my talk page when editing a page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TZubiri

Or better yet, publish an edit request, and tag me or notify me in my talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_Request_Wizard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests 4 Finally, policy wise, it's common for sources to be used to advanced views not explicit in them, this constitutes original research, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...

	▲	postflopclarity 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		or I could just do something better with my time :/ so much effort all to fix what should be a clear and objective inaccuracy