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 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.
On the opening post — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Taking Recording a dissent seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.
Confirming the opening post from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
Written quickly, so the reasoning may be tighter than the wording.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
I have written this out at length because the short version keeps being misread.
Post #2 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.
Point three stops most nominations. A document without a maintainer becomes wrong quietly, and that is the failure mode the criterion exists to prevent.
Reviewing means reading it as somebody who needs the answer rather than as somebody checking it. Those two readings find different problems.
The arithmetic in post #8 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Second maintainers matter. A single maintainer is a single point of failure and every document here that went stale had one.
I would call that likely rather than established.
Approving a document you have not read is worse than not responding, and it happens because approval feels supportive.
I had written a reply contradicting post #9 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
Confirming post #9 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Recording a dissent: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.
Where I part company with post #14, and it is a narrow parting.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
Adding the measurement that post #17 says would settle it.
Check the links. Promotion frequently breaks a cross-reference because the source topic now points at the document rather than the reverse.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
Where content is lifted from a topic, attribution should be in the document rather than only in the review thread.
The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
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.
I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
I keep a log for Recording a dissent specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.
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.
Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.
Worth separating two things that post #20 runs together.
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.
Nothing to add on the substance. Thank you for taking the question at face value.
Where a review raises something the author disagrees with, recording the disagreement in the review thread is better than resolving it privately.
Worth checking against a second source before it gets quoted onward.
Picking up post #26: that is the part I would want checked first.
Practical note on Recording a dissent: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.
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.