99:
288:
197:, and adhered to all other relevant norms. Or, the article might be an article (or several related articles) that already exists, on a topic that is close to Bob's heart about which they care quite a lot, and they have noticed that they feel it is missing some key information, so they go and find the best available sources, and add it themselves. Pleased with their work, Bob provides an appropriate
271:. Bob reverts Alice's changes in turn, starts a talk page discussion about the perceived content issues, or attempts to explain their rationale in their edit summaries, citing various policies, guidelines, and essays which they feel justify their preferred changes. Alice re-reverts Bob, and seeks to explain what is wrong, but at this point Bob is already so heated that they are incapable of
24:
80:
316:
Besides this, while it may indeed be helpful to watch a page for updates, discussion replies, vandalism, or questionably sourced edits, as already mentioned, you may decide that the page is already seeing enough attention to it, and you don't have much of value to contribute, so it's best to move on.
307:
If you disagree with further edits to a page and feel it's not worth the trouble to challenge those edits, then you may want to unwatchlist the page instead. Or, you may want to unwatchlist the page pre-emptively if you anticipate your contribution being controversial. Or even if you don't anticipate
312:
return to it later after you've calmed down, and then respond to or refine the changes sensibly with a clear mind. Or, if you do not think you'll be able to collect yourself and contribute constructively, you can leave the page alone indefinitely, and let more experienced editors take or leave what
164:
The aforementioned essay states several examples of articles that are recommends and not recommended to watch. The first on the list is pages that you created or made significant contributions to. This may be a good idea, if you're the ideal
129:
However, you may want to think carefully before using this feature indiscriminately. While it is an undoubtedly useful and often essential tool with which to maintain
Knowledge, it is also the single aspect of Knowledge that comes closest to
303:
It's also worth noting that this may happen even if Bob never edited the page, or may have only made minute contributions, but simply cares a lot about the subject and might have a strong emotional attachment to the information on it.
250:
template or other such notice, removes the unreliable sources and information depending on them, and/or rewrites or reworks the article as needed to comply with
Knowledge's content policies as Alice understands
156:
However, there is one point of potential disagreement to be had with it: the recommendation of watching articles that you created, edited, or have an interest in. This may not actually be advisable.
118:). This can be helpful if you are collaborating with other users on improving the page, there is an active discussion and you want to see if replies are made, the page is a frequent target of
260:. There, Bob sees that Alice has edited their article, removing information or sources that Bob felt were essential to the page's coverage of the topic. Although Bob is aware that
173:
over their contributions and won't be bothered whatsoever if their contributions are reverted. However, if this does not describe you, then the following scenario may play out:
320:
In short, if you are the sort of person who gets stressed out by major changes to pages you edited or care about for other reasons, or feels compelled to check
353:
159:
272:
308:
it being controversial, but just don't want to be bothered thinking about it. Once you've put the page at a suitable distance, you can
382:
150:
39:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
388:
114:
lets you track pages that you have an interest in, providing you with a feed of new changes made to the page (and its associated
142:
account knows, it can be very stressful to read a constantly updating feed of everything, which may make all these things look
352:
This is all just preference, and you might not want to abide by this advice, if this doesn't sound like it would improve your
299:
All this could be avoided, if at any point in this story, Bob simply removed the disputed article(s) from their watchlist and
377:
340:
Articles that are the subject of a content dispute, where you are not able to constructively contribute to dispute resolution
153:
In general, that essay's arguments and suggestions are rather sound, and it is generally useful advice for many new editors.
243:
177:
Bob, a new or intermediately experienced editor, has just written a new article. Bob believes that they understand the
178:
40:
360:
295:
that was collaboratively improved by the community and left to sit peacefully after its creator unwatchlisted it.
283:, or, if nothing else, Bob is left feeling bitter about the experience and less enthused about editing Knowledge.
92:
watch articles that you have an attachment to, if you anticipate yourself being bothered by changes made to them.
149:
This principle is already deftly summarized in another essay on the subject of the healthy use of watchlisting,
102:
It may be best to simply set your edits adrift and not pay attention to wherever they end up, or who finds them.
309:
359:
However, if you do ever come to regret your watchlisting decisions, you can of course flush your watchlist in
44:
409:
215:
404:
234:, Alice firmly disagrees with Bob's edits. The information might appear questionable, or biased, or
372:
268:
143:
280:
110:
which allows you to "watch" pages, so long as you have an account. Through this functionality,
223:
62:
214:
Meanwhile, Alice, an experienced contributor, finds Bob's edits. Alice might be patrolling
206:
166:
8:
300:
247:
131:
119:
186:
54:
343:
Articles that get edited a lot and already have plenty of active editors watching them
292:
276:
198:
182:
123:
111:
47:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
202:
98:
32:
235:
107:
227:
194:
115:
181:
of
Knowledge, that they have done their due research and ensured the topic is
169:: someone good at collaborating and interacting with others, who doesn't feel
398:
265:
261:
239:
231:
219:
170:
209:
to article space if necessary, clicks "Publish", and gets on with their day.
135:
347:
287:
256:
When Bob edited or created the page, it was automatically added to their
230:
new edit to the existing article. While she recognizes that Bob acted in
190:
323:
238:, the sources might seem dodgy, or contain a source or two that Bob
279:
may brew, an argument may occur, or the incident may escalate to a
139:
201:
explaining their rationale for their changes, moves it from
366:
337:
Articles you have a strong attachment to for other reasons
222:, or checking a list of new pages added to her favorite
242:. So Alice goes ahead and reverts Bob's changes, or
334:Articles you created or made significant edits to
396:
106:On Knowledge, there is a handy feature called a
226:, when she comes across Bob's new article, or
160:Why you may not want to watch "your" articles
126:, or otherwise unhelpful edits, and so on.
329:you may want to unwatchlist the following:
389:Knowledge:Why you should watch redirects
383:Knowledge:Don't overload your watchlist!
286:
151:Knowledge:Don't overload your watchlist!
97:
264:on Knowledge, they immediately jump to
397:
378:Knowledge:Revert notification opt-out
74:
18:
13:
45:thoroughly vetted by the community
41:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
14:
421:
78:
22:
391:, another supplementary opinion
1:
144:much more important or urgent
313:you added, as they see fit.
7:
240:didn't know wasn't reliable
10:
426:
356:to any worthwhile degree.
52:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge
385:, the other point of view
293:perfect Knowledge article
86:This page in a nutshell:
373:Knowledge:Watchlistitis
179:policies and guidelines
138:site. As anyone with a
296:
285:
103:
290:
175:
146:than they truly are.
101:
43:, as it has not been
327:that is introduced,
262:no one owns articles
193:sources, written it
88:It may be better to
410:Knowledge watchlist
269:their contributions
246:the article with a
297:
104:
322:Every Single New
96:
95:
73:
72:
417:
405:Knowledge essays
361:your preferences
348:And of course...
301:forgot about it.
82:
81:
75:
65:
26:
25:
19:
425:
424:
420:
419:
418:
416:
415:
414:
395:
394:
369:
350:
162:
79:
69:
68:
61:
57:
49:
48:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
423:
413:
412:
407:
393:
392:
386:
380:
375:
368:
365:
349:
346:
345:
344:
341:
338:
335:
248:{{Notability}}
220:recent changes
161:
158:
112:your watchlist
94:
93:
83:
71:
70:
67:
66:
58:
53:
50:
38:
37:
29:
27:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
422:
411:
408:
406:
403:
402:
400:
390:
387:
384:
381:
379:
376:
374:
371:
370:
364:
363:at any time.
362:
357:
355:
342:
339:
336:
333:
332:
331:
330:
326:
325:
318:
314:
311:
305:
302:
294:
289:
284:
282:
278:
274:
270:
267:
263:
259:
254:
252:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
212:
210:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
174:
172:
168:
157:
154:
152:
147:
145:
141:
137:
133:
127:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
100:
91:
87:
84:
77:
76:
64:
60:
59:
56:
51:
46:
42:
36:
34:
28:
21:
20:
358:
351:
328:
321:
319:
315:
310:at any point
306:
298:
273:keeping cool
257:
255:
253:
213:
211:
199:edit summary
176:
163:
155:
148:
136:social media
128:
105:
89:
85:
63:WP:DONTWATCH
30:
281:noticeboard
224:WikiProject
31:This is an
399:Categories
232:good faith
203:draftspace
191:verifiable
167:Wikipedian
132:resembling
258:Watchlist
216:new pages
207:userspace
195:neutrally
171:ownership
124:brigading
120:vandalism
116:talk page
108:watchlist
367:See also
354:WikiLife
277:edit war
187:reliable
185:, added
55:Shortcut
183:notable
140:Twitter
266:defend
275:. An
251:them.
236:undue
33:essay
324:Diff
244:tags
228:bold
189:and
218:or
205:or
90:not
401::
291:A
134:a
122:,
35:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.