Mojito wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 12:49 pm
Elinruby wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 7:00 am
I apologize for the part I played in derailing your thread.
As an effort to make amends, allow me to bring you a naive idea that so will never happen: en-wp should ban the use of Twinkle and more broadly, maybe even the use of revert altogether. It's too easy to be uncivil while using them. Since I can hear the howls of outrage beginning already, fine, maybe it can be used in cases of obvious vandalism or where a sock has already been blocked.
But it's just automated incivility. Change my mind
There ya go. Consider me a cat that has brought you a dead mouse because I kinda like you
Thanks for the semi-mutilated rodent, it's the thought that counts
I agree that reverting is often misused (regardless of whether Twinkle is involved or not). Perhaps a method to reduce the problem would be to require a Talk Page post before each revert. Not just a barrier to entry, it also forces people to justify their action and engage in discussion (rather than snarky back-and-forth Edit Summaries)
Just remember, a cat that brings you a dead mouse is telling you that it cares about you
. Seriously, I would vote for that proposal if I saw an RFC for it, but I very much doubt that the RfC. would pass. It's a dopamine hack for some people to do a lot of things really fast, and the way that en-wp keeps statistics encourages this. I also mentioned this idea to a couple of en-wp users -- not particularly revert-happy, as these things go -- who were horrified. Perhaps at the thought that I would actually propose this and annoy some more power users, not sure, but it definitely seems to meet your criterion of naivete,.
I agree that the fundamental problem is the attitude and not Twinkle itself, but Twinkle automates the attitude and makes it seem acceptable, since hey, here's a whole tool for acting in a certain way, that most likely exacerbates the strife on Wikipedia, if you ask me. I almost never revert anyone but I notice that when I do people tend to want to argue about it, and it affects me the same way., definitely more so than deletions or ,modifications discussed at the talk page,.
Similarly, machine translation makes possible much faster translation errors, which are also harder to detect than the simple typos that a manual translation would be more likely to produce. I get that machine translation thing, is easier, don't get me wrong; manual translation can be very tedious. I have just spent way too much time working on it. and it's especially tedious to fix other people's bad translation. (A lot of my ideas have to do with article translations since I reluctantly quit doing them -- mostly--although I do have several in progress just now)
+1 that posting to the talk page is better than making snarky edit summaries, although some admins seem to disagree.that using the talk page is a good thing.
If I were looking for easy answers I would say that it all depends.
(edited to remove a typo)
