Board Thread:Wiki Discussion/@comment-5632187-20141023222048/@comment-5264386-20141024094027

I supsect that your edit was undone not so much because of the content, but because of the way it was worded. More specifically, you've used second-person pronouns ("you", in case you're unaware) in the note, whereas we prefer to depersonalise what we write through the user of either third-person pronouns or phrases such as "the player". Yes, it's odd to write in at first, but the use of depersonalised sentence structures reflects the purpose of our articles: to provide information in a somewhat encyclopaedic fashion.

However, I do agree that there needs to be a change in overall attitude towards reverting edits. We need to be less inclined to be "trigger-happy" as it were, and start encouraging the analysis of an 'unsuitable' edit to see how it can be improved. If the information's relevant and useful to know, but isn't worded in line with the standard, then it should simply be reworded to fit the standard we set. However, if it's stuff like vandalism or speculation, then it should be removed. In addition to this, there really needs to be a brief summary of why an edit is being reverted. I'm not saying it needs to be a short essay, but just a few words or so to convey in the wiki activity what's changed.

As you touched on, a concept of "valid until proven invalid" probably wouldn't hurt for major points, such as notes about interactions of characters in a particular story-arc. Again, if an edit is saying something obviously incorrect or cannot be proven, such as "Lautrec has a chance of dual-wielding Demon's Great Hammers when summoned", then it should be removed without requiring the 'burden of proof'.

Regarding the format of this post, whilst it is true that a draft sets out rough ideas, their main purpose is to stimulate feedback on the ideas presented, and is thus in no way a final version of a work or policy. I understand that you're worried about this setting a precedent of admins being able to say "this is how I want it to be, so your opinion is invalid", but at the end of the day, the post was intended to stimulate discussion on how to deal with edit wars, not to say "these are the rules as of now". Perhaps it could have been worded a bit differently, but that's the way life goes; we never say/write the perfect thing 100% of the time.