 | This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page is located somewhere on the brink between light and darkness, between shadow and substance, between matter and antimatter, between essay and humour, and between ignoring the rules and following procedure. This threshold is commonly known asThe Twilight Zone...Doo Doo Doo Doo Take a break from editing if fatigue is a problem, it's very refreshing |
Sometimes we arestuck between a rock and a hard place,sailing betweenScylla andCharybdis, not sure toAGF! orcall a spade a spade or just ignore all trolls! Traditionally the phrasebetweenScylla and Charybdis has come to mean being in a state where one isbetween two dangers and moving away from one will cause you to be in danger from the other.
This isthe grey zonethe twilight zone that evening time when things lose their distinction, and every move may be wrong, astumble from off thebridge, or a bridge too far.
BuildingWikipedia is a collaborative process. So what happens when the process is not working optimally?
EditorA makes an edit to an article, a “bad edit”, which does not adhere to aneutral point of view. This is by no means the first time that EditorA has made such an edit. EditorB reverts that edit, and on the discussion page (or in theedit summary) says. “I reverted your edit, EdA, because you are aPOV-pusher, pushing a POV".
EditorC comes along, notices that EditorB has beenuncivil. And posts to the discussion page, “EditorB, you have been uncivil, please withdraw your statement”.[1]
What has gone wrong here? Well EditorB did not act perfectly, neither did EditorA (perfection being unavailable to human beings). But what did EditorC do wrong? Well, EditorDcomes along, and, as well as checking that EditorB apologised for the INCIVILITY, EditorD also checks the ORIGINAL edit by EditorA, and, if that edit was defective, tries to repair it. (Note that, although EditorB reverted the change made by EditorA, EdA or other editors may have re-instated it in the meantime.) EditorD also notices that this is the eighth time that EditorA has tried to insert poorly-sourced material favoring a certain point of view, and points out Wikipedia's policies regardingneutrality andverifiability.
Just checking onINCIVILITY is only part of the work. The accuracy of edits must be checked, even if the editor who brought the problem to the community’s attention was to some degree incivil in doing so. This is not, though, an excuse for incivility. The background to the incident at hand should also be taken into account, and pointers made to appropriate Wikipedia policy.
And if there is no EditorD? Then, in that case, we just hope that most editors, in the role of EditorC, are experienced enough to know that they might have to do BOTH of these things (deprecate any incivility, AND check the original edit). In practice, the likelihood of EditorC doing this is similar to the likelihood of stumbling over theHope Diamond as one is walking across the street.