User blog comment:Zippertrain85/Revert Spamming why Wikis Should Stop it/@comment-1216259-20140501121359

I see your point, but I have totally the opposite problem:

While it is important to change in order to accommodate new information, a professional source should be relatively stable. I shouldn't be afraid that the information is going to change the next day. Most edits that I see are minor alterations to grammar & diction. Even if these changes are not obviously wrong, over time, that unnecessary expansion adds up, & you end up with long, meandering pages so filled with qualifiers, specifiers, exceptions, conjunctions, & all of that fancy stuff that the point becomes buried, & readability is actually decreased.

Sometimes, less is more. Expansion should be done where it is necessary. Sometimes, I am sorely tempted to just auto-revert edits because the person clearly didn't ask themselves what changing "use" to "utilize" actually added to the page.

Also, it's an uphill battle to get even 1 person to accept this. The prospect of explaining it to every editor who makes an unnecessary "fix" is pretty daunting.

Believe me, I empathize with the notion that the editing process is frustrating & sometimes you just don't want to bother with it. In fact, I would say that auto-reversion is just the other side of that coin.