Forum:Fix vs Undo

Hello,

I'm an admin on the Rappelz Wiki. There is an upcoming big update for the game, and I think there's going to be a lot of updates done to the wiki after that.

However, irregular editors don't follow the rules, or don't really care about how they update the wiki.

That's why I've started a discussion on our forums about what should be done with badly done updates. If you're interested to see, here it is (we only have 3 'active' admins).

The main question is: do we revert/undo badly done edits, or do we fix them.

Here's what I mean by Fix and Revert (undo):


 * A Fix policy means that we let the users edit pages, add content, etc. If the content is not properly entered, an admin passes by after each edit and fixes it.


 * A Revert policy means that if an edit is not properly done (without respect to guidelines), an admin reverts it and adds a link to the proper guideline in the revert message.

I've come up with main pros/cons I see with both policies.

I'd like to have your inputs with that. I know on some wikis they just undo edits stating "see the guidelines". It's kinda 'Shark VS Carebear.

Thanks a lot!

Hunter789 20:00, November 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * it is a tough call to make. I come from a wiki that has a very strict undo policy but it really only works on wikis in which there is a strong user base. Undoing will cause you to lose editors. If you think you have enough editors even if you undo edits, give the undo option a shot but I think it is preferable for most wikis to do a fix policy.--


 * If the fix work is small, why simply undo everything? You should go case by case. Anyway in both cases the users must be warned and if they don't follow the guidelines then take actions. Well on the wikis I edit, we don't have a strict policy like that, so maybe I can't be more of an help.

I personally prefer the fix idea. It allows for new information, even if it isn't the prettiest. Since a lot of people will be looking for the new info, and might ignore the bit of it not being the prettiest. 21:24, November 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * You need both fix and undo. The right amount of either action depends on the size of your wiki and the amount of editors. Choosing only one can really limit your options.


 * If there is some valuable and good faith information in the edit, it should be generally fixed. I usually let some (short) time pass before I intervene, so that people can see what they wrote and improve it themselves.


 * If an edit is blatantly useless, revert with no regrets. If someone creates a new page and puts a sentence of gibberish on it, delete without even bothering to enter a summary.


 * It all boils down to using your judgement. That's why you need admins, a strict policy can't do that. -- 21:30, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

(indent reset) Thanks all for your inputs. I'll try to have the wiki straighten up and all the information appropriately formatted, with formats documented before the update.

Our wiki as 15-20k daily visits but very few updates. So I think we'll go for a 'fix' policy, but warning the editors that their edits might be reverted.

We already revert without further notice when it's clear vandalism.

Again, thanks a lot for replying :)

Hunter789 18:59, November 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Erm, why don't you have a Fix and tell policy? Use the MediaWiki:Welcome-message-user and MediaWiki:Welcome-message-anon display what you want to tell your users (logged in and not logged in; example on how to do it welcoming and nicely; example on very strict option (not recommended, altough this is a quality page); example how i wouldn't recommend it either). It is also helpfull to show text above the newly edited/ added pages with MediaWiki:Newarticletext. Can be done like this.
 * Fix the problems and leave a short notice on the summery what you did and why. Active contributors will easily pick up on your comments and be glad you helped them.