That said I do agree that creating new articles in Wikipedia can be hard and I would prefer policies to be different and while that is good it’s not the core of what I’m advocating here.
In cases where an edit is very likely to be reverted when done on the article, the place to have the discussion about the content in question is the talk page. That’s why I spoke in my post about voicing issues on the talk page.
The powers that be should really change this.
Wikipedia is democratic there are no “power that be”. Someone has to write the RfC and then enough people (there’s a minimum number of edits to be eligible) need to support the RfC. Admins don’t have any special voting rights.
If the people who are annoyed by the status quo leave instead of voting in the decisions to have better policy, policy won’t improve.
Indeed you can discuss edits on the talk page, but doing so does not prevent gatekeepers reverting anything at whim. So the position often is: your edit will not be accepted unless you’re prepared to spend an indefinite amount of time arguing the case for it.
This has always been the case and created problems at times, but the problem is now worse than ever. As, unlike before, your edit/article is now assumed guilty until proven innocent.
Establishing consensus does help preventing people from reverting at whim. A single person coming to an article alone doesn’t produce consensus for a change. That actually needs multiple people.
That said I do agree that creating new articles in Wikipedia can be hard and I would prefer policies to be different and while that is good it’s not the core of what I’m advocating here.
In cases where an edit is very likely to be reverted when done on the article, the place to have the discussion about the content in question is the talk page. That’s why I spoke in my post about voicing issues on the talk page.
Wikipedia is democratic there are no “power that be”. Someone has to write the RfC and then enough people (there’s a minimum number of edits to be eligible) need to support the RfC. Admins don’t have any special voting rights.
If the people who are annoyed by the status quo leave instead of voting in the decisions to have better policy, policy won’t improve.
Indeed you can discuss edits on the talk page, but doing so does not prevent gatekeepers reverting anything at whim. So the position often is: your edit will not be accepted unless you’re prepared to spend an indefinite amount of time arguing the case for it.
This has always been the case and created problems at times, but the problem is now worse than ever. As, unlike before, your edit/article is now assumed guilty until proven innocent.
Establishing consensus does help preventing people from reverting at whim. A single person coming to an article alone doesn’t produce consensus for a change. That actually needs multiple people.