Wikipedia talk:Mass editing

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Consensus[edit]

Consensus should be obtained whenever a mass editing could be controversial. I would like to quote from a recently proposed arbcom decision: Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

The next point is the question where this consensus is to be found. Obviously not on the talk page of an article. More likely on a WikiProject page (perhaps with notifications of other relevant WikiProjects) or on a central page like WP:BRFA. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing speed[edit]

I think that editing speed should be considered as well. From WP:BOTREQUIRE: Bots' editing speed should be regulated in some way; subject to approval, bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots doing more urgent tasks may edit approximately once every five seconds. Similar constraints should also be considered for semi-automatic or supervised mass editing. WP:MEATBOTS appears to apply here as well.

I think that two points are important here:

Some mass editings introduced errors en masse which are either fixed by another mass editing run or simply remain unfixed. Test runs on a small number of articles should be considered to let other people check whether the changes are ok.
Nobody likes a watchlist to be flooded with such edits. If there is no botflag, it is not easy to filter these edits in the watchlist. I have already experienced a flooded watchlist by automated edits without bot flag with more than 500 edits – this is beyond the maximal number of edits supported.

--AFBorchert (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responsiveness[edit]

I think that there should be an understanding that editors who carry out mass editing are required to be responsive to complaints while the mass editing is ongoing. They should be prepared to interrupt the process and to check if there is a serious problem which needs to be addressed first before continuing. The essay should also give directions that the editor should be contacted first but give also advise where to go next if a supposedly problematic mass editing continues without discussion (see also WP:BOTISSUE). --AFBorchert (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added most of the above. Please feel free to expand upon this on the project page, and to organize content as you like. BD2412 T 21:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks good and is appreciated! I prefer to add my thoughts to the talk page and I think the essay is best left to your hands to keep it as readable and concise as it is now. Thanks for having started this. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetic changes[edit]

Mass editing with just cosmetic changes are likely to be controversial. In this discussion, a restriction was imposed that prohibited an editor to making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. We should assume that mass editing has always some disrupting character and that consequently the benefits should outweigh the disruption. --AFBorchert (talk)

I think this is coming along well. BD2412 T 23:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline[edit]

I would suggest that the aim here should be to write a guideline not an essay. I think the development to date reflects that but also wanted to throw that out as a concept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: The aim is indeed to write a guideline, but I'm labeling it as an essay until it's in better shape to propose as a guideline. BD2412 T 23:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good and I support its advancement into more thorough community consideration as a guideline to enact. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needs links to examples[edit]

This essay is too abstract and should link to examples. There is mention of AWB, and I suppose we could mention bots in general. Is there more to present? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]