User:SkullyEnterprises

Zero-revert rule

Editors may also choose to adhere to a zero-revert rule, for example:

"Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints. If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page."

Using a zero-revert rule gives fellow editors the benefit of the doubt in all cases. Even in instances where you know the other editor's viewpoint is dead wrong, the fact that some people have this viewpoint can be relevant in itself, and their contributions might be expandable into a useful addition to the article. However, this rule can be very difficult to follow in practice, e.g. because an edit can be well-intentioned and at the same time evidently wrong.

Self styled "deletionist" miss the point of a wiki site. This is supposed to be a group effort to create a source of accurate information. If articles and edits are removed as soon as they are posted at the discretion of one individual then the group can never make revisions, additions or corrections. That, for all intents and purposes, makes the "deletionist" the de facto editor which is not how this system was intended to work.