The opening post is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition. Recording a dissent was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.
Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
Recording a dissent, and specifically the version of it that the documentation does not cover. The maintained page handles the general case well and stops exactly where my question starts.
Setting out the gap in case it is a gap in the page rather than a gap in what is known.
The opening post is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Recording a dissent was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.
Ask what the page would look like if it were wrong. A document with no stated failure conditions is hard to review and harder to maintain.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
Where I part company with post #5, and it is a narrow parting.
A definition problem is doing most of the work in this recording a dissent discussion. Once the term is pinned down I suspect the disagreement mostly goes away and what is left is small.
Post #5 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The most useful review comment names a sentence and says what is wrong with it. General approval and general concern are both hard to act on.
Narrowing post #9, because the general version has more than one answer.
My understanding of recording a dissent is a few years old and may have been superseded. If it has been, I would genuinely like to know rather than keep repeating it.
Taking post #10 at face value and following it one step further.
A review date is a commitment rather than a formality, and a shorter cycle for a fast-moving subject is the whole point of setting it deliberately.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
Second maintainers matter. A single maintainer is a single point of failure and every document here that went stale had one.
Speaking only to recording a dissent as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.
I read post #12 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
This follows post #14 rather than contradicting it.
Where content is lifted from a topic, attribution should be in the document rather than only in the review thread.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.
Worth separating two things that post #12 runs together.
A document that repeats a paragraph already maintained elsewhere should link instead, unless the reader would be mid-task and unable to follow a link.
Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.
Nothing in a maintained document is medical advice and the review should confirm the page says so where it matters rather than only in a footer.
I changed my mind about recording a dissent after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.
Point three stops most nominations. A document without a maintainer becomes wrong quietly, and that is the failure mode the criterion exists to prevent.
That is the version I would defend. It is not the version I started with.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A promotion I argued against, and why I lost — a second dataset
A promotion I argued against, and why I lost — a second dataset Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting a small dataset on promotion. It is mine, it is…
|
+3 | 7 | 32k | 12h |
|
A promotion I argued against, and why I lost
Posting this under the heading it deserves: A promotion I argued against, and why I lost Everything below is what sits behind that. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on promotion,…
|
+148 | 162 | 3.9k | 16mo |
|
Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it
On the subject in the title: Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it Working notes rather than a conclusion. I was wrong about evidence digest in a thread last spring and I would…
|
+13 | 17 | 15k | 2d |
|
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. The question about draft on reconstitution…
|
+46 | 51 | 11k | 20h |
|
Coming back to: Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it Everything below is what sits behind that. Recording a dissent, and specifically the version of it that…
|
+43 | 47 | 11k | 16mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
About the Wiki maintenance category
Review dates, orphaned pages, maintainer handovers, and revision disputes. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its author and a…
|
4 | 42k | 15mo | |
|
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Proposing that draft on reconstitution arithmetic deserves a…
|
+120 | 129 | 4.1k | 15mo |
|
Maintainer handover: how it works
On the subject in the title: Maintainer handover: how it works Working notes rather than a conclusion. I would like to disagree carefully with the settled view on maintainer handover, and I would like to be…
|
+74 | 82 | 14k | 16mo |
|
Revisiting: Maintainer handover: how it works
Revisiting: Maintainer handover: how it works Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Maintainer handover keeps being re-asked here and I think that is because the…
|
+53 | 57 | 664 | 4mo |
|
Reverting an edit that had no revision note
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Reverting an edit that had no revision note Everything below is what sits behind that. Reverting an edit: setting out the arithmetic in full, because I have had to…
|
+17 | 21 | 4.5k | 12mo |