[2026 update] Reverting an edit that had no revision note

Reverting an edit that had no revision note — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

Collecting what is known about Reverting an edit in one place, because it is currently spread across a category, two tag pages and a thread that is hard to find.

This is a summary rather than new work, and I have attributed each part to where I found it.

Reverting an edit is a question about a distribution, not about a value, and treating it as a value is what produces the confident wrong answers.

Agreed. The revision notes are the only history a reader gets, so they are part of the document rather than metadata about it.

A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.

Taking post #3 at face value and following it one step further.

Proposing an edit rather than making one, because it changes a number. The figure in the third paragraph is right for the licensed formulation and is being read as general. I would add four words scoping it.

I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.

Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one: has anyone here actually observed Reverting an edit, as opposed to read about it? The thread is long and I cannot tell.

Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made, discussing it here invites resolution rather than conflict.

This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.

Worth separating two things that post #3 runs together.

Maintenance note. This document is due for review and the maintainer has asked for a second reader before the date rather than after it. If you use this page regularly, this is the moment your objection is cheapest to act on.

This is the sort of thing that ought to be settled and apparently is not.

That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.

Confirming post #7 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

Wiki hygiene point: every edit here should say what changed and why in the note, not what section it touched. "Fixed typo" and "corrected the concentration in example two" are very different entries to read back.

I would hold that lightly until someone with a larger sample weighs in.

Post #10 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

One caution on Reverting an edit: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.

I have been on both sides of the Reverting an edit argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.

Edit made and noted: replaced an approximate figure with the published one and cited it. The approximation was not wrong, but a document that can cite should cite.

This is where my knowledge stops and I would rather mark the edge than blur it.