Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary: Difference between revisions

→‎{{anchor|DONTREVERT}} Bad reasons to revert: Changing "status quo" to "own writing styles" is more than a copyedit. I doubt we are merely discussing "writing styles" here.
(Expand)
(→‎{{anchor|DONTREVERT}} Bad reasons to revert: Changing "status quo" to "own writing styles" is more than a copyedit. I doubt we are merely discussing "writing styles" here.)
 
* Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the ''status quo'' (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.
* Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of theirthe ownstatus writing stylesquo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing.
{{Shortcut|WP:MASSR}}
* Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad, and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest. (To do this, you can use the "undo" button, then type back in what you want to keep). If a supporter of the reverted edit wants to save more of it, that editor can re-edit in smaller pieces and the article can converge on a consensus version that way.