User:Daniel Simanek/"What You Did" vs "Why You Did It"

This essay is meant to discuss the purpose of the edit summary and how it should differ from a talk page. It is based on the following from the edit summary help page:

“ Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! Instead, place such comments, if required, on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself. ”

This should really be the policy for all edit summaries, not just for articles under an edit war. Expressing extensive opinions about an article or edit in an edit summary is just asking for that edit to be reverted by another editor who disagrees with you. The edit summary's purpose is to notify other editors of what you did, not why you did it. If you feel you need to justify your edit, ask yourself, "Can I justify this edit in under five words?" If the answer to the is no, then your justification should be put on the talk page and your edit summary should include, "Please see the talk page." That is what the talk page is for.

Now obviously there are going to be exceptions to this, most notably when dealing with vandalism or problematic good faith edits. In this case your justification should just cite the policy that was violated. Anything more starts to sound dickish. Saying things like pointless or stupid in an edit summary creates an editing environment conducive for angry mastodons. You also run the risk of biting a newcomer.

We have all seen the policies on civility, good faith, and personal attacks and, for the most part, Wikipedians do a pretty good job of adhering to them. But apparently nobody has realized these policies also apply to edit summaries as well. I strongly recommend all editors abide by this essay, and hopefully this will make Wikipedia a bit more welcoming.