I suggested two tag-wikis (which were blank before):

So, I thought these were substantial edits; simply because I added a lot of text to blank fields. But, these got rejected (by the moderator), supplying the following reason:

This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post.

This leaves me wondering: why!?

Edit:Since there are no answers, I make it a little different: Please vote, in case you had to approve or reject, what should you have done?


Tag wikis need some love and thank you for your efforts. However, the edits are not substantial as you claim, and there's practically no effort put into it. Here's a bit more to the story, just so people don't think that you've been grossly wronged.

A few days ago, you started flooding the queue with edits to tag wikis and excerpts, and you merely copied content from Wikipedia without any attribution whatsoever. You copied just enough to make it look believable that you wrote it, yet not too much to make anyone doubt it. Since you passed them off as your own, a few users who approved them were tricked into believing that they were original and were in fact impressed that someone took the time to write them all. Nearly 100 edits had passed before I saw your fresh batch of edits sitting in the queue the next morning and it so happened that I was familiar with a few of the wikipedia articles you copied from, and I immediately recognized that it was plagiarized.

Plagiarism is not something we condone and we're not in middle school anymore to not know that it's wrong. Moderators datageist and I had to spend nearly a full hour trying to fix your plagiarized content by searching for the sources and attributing them, and datageist spent a further few hours later that day fixing your earlier edits. This is not a good use of our time, and all of this was brought about because of your plagiarism. You should've really been suspended for it, but instead, I was a bit more forgiving and pulled you over in chat and told you to attribute sources and you agreed.

Your next batch of edits had sources dumped in the end, and we did approve them, with some fixes. What really flipped me off was this suggested edit which you've conveniently linked in your question. Specifically (emphasis mine):

[...] from different times, or from different viewpoints.[1] It is used in computer vision [...]

You couldn't even bother to remove the [1] from Wikipedia's citation! That's how lazy and unsubstantial these edits are. It does not take any effort to copy two lines from Wikipedia and when even that is done sloppily, I see no other option other than to reject.

These aren't good tag wiki entries either. Tag wikis are not proxies for Wikipedia. It probably takes me the same number of clicks to get to a tag wiki article as it does to a wikipedia article and I get less information!

A tag wiki is supposed to educate users about the kind of questions you expect in the tag and perhaps what not to ask and if additional tags need to be used. The culinary uses tag on cooking.SE is a good example. It tells you what kind of questions use the tag, what kind of questions are not appropriate and has some tips on answering. apples and identification tags from gardening.SE are other examples that come to mind. If a tag becomes extremely popular, the tag could have its own collection of FAQ and tutorials like the scala tag on Stack Overflow. However, we have a long way to go before we get there.

I'm not saying that the first iteration of the tag wiki needs to be perfect. However, I do think it needs to be more substantial than copy-pasta. The mistake was that we, the users who approved, fell into the trap of something is better than nothing. However, we'd rather have nothing than sloppy copies. Henceforth, I'll reject all cut-n-pastes, even if attributed. We can do better than that.

  • $\begingroup$ I somehow agree to what you've said and would like to admit that I wasn't so thoughtful in doing so. Another small point I would like to make is the days when I "flooded" the queue with more number of suggestions were friday and saturday; and hence I had more time than usual. Thanks for your time, to write this answer. $\endgroup$
    – eeerahul
    Dec 9 '11 at 5:36

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .