4

I recently rejected a tag wiki edit because I thought (and still think) the edit was incorrect (and stated what I thought the errors were). However, the edit was approved by two other people.

My questions: (1) would my basis for rejecting the edit have been visible to the people who approved it? and (2) would it be "the done thing" for me to go in and re-edit it. Or do I just accept the errors?. Or could we discuss it here?

4

Perhaps it will get old, but meta seems a good place to vet matters about the tag wiki--both generally (as this question does) or specifically (as would a question specific to a tag like "palaeography").

As to etiquette, we are working together to build a valuable community. In this process, we learn from each other--we will learn even more from those yet to come. Edit away!

When folks suspect there is a conflict about the information being developed, we also have the meta and/or chat to explore the possible information differences.

4

Do not accept what you believe to be incorrect. Go ahead and re-edit.

This answer is written recognising the probability that the "error" was created by me in a recent flurry of tag editing. I was surprised to see that nothing was queried at all.

4
  • I agree. If there is an error, just make another edit (it is a tag wiki, after all). Nov 22 '12 at 14:05
  • @Luke, Fortiter -- I will go ahead and edit. From memory it was Luke's edit.. palaeography ring any bells?
    – user104
    Nov 22 '12 at 16:15
  • Yeah, I didn't phrase that wiki too well. I was trying to get at interpreting what the handwriting says. Nov 23 '12 at 1:02
  • @Luke Oh, I've been meaning to get to that one. It definitely needed an explanation for those who aren't familiar with the word. I'm hoping that it gets synonymed with 'handwriting-analysis' once everyone gets enough rep to suggest synonyms. Good job tackling it... Look what you started and now it's gonna be even better :) Nov 23 '12 at 7:27

You must log in to answer this question.