英和和英

動詞

edit-war (三人称単数 現在形 edit-wars, 現在分詞 edit-warring, 過去形および過去分詞形 edit-warred)

1. Alternative form of edit war.
   • 2007 August 21, Kirsten Anderson, “Wiki Wars”, in HuffPost‎^[1], archived from the original on 2 July 2019:

     This led to a serious of furious exchanges on the discussion page, with allegations of abuse of power by the admin, and anger that this had been done without bothering to understand that the “edit-warring” was not a real problem, but simply the result of (in what is so far the phrase of the year, かつ unlikely to be challenged for that title) “a rolling band of disruptive socks.”

   • 2008 March 1, Daily Telegraph Reporter, “Wikipedia war over police chief’s page”, in The Daily Telegraph, number 47,507, page 11:

     Wikipedia bosses have temporarily “locked-down” the page, meaning it cannot be changed by anyone except administrators, because of what they call “edit-warring” between those working for Sir Norman and people who want to make mischief.

   • 2009, Andrew Dalby, The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality, Siduri, →ISBN, page 148:

     The article Jimmy Wales was not only begun by Jimbo Wales, as noted above. He has also edited it at least 18 times since. He has even, in a half-hearted way, edit-warred on the page, repeatedly deleting phrases that characterised Larry Sanger as co-founder of the site.

   • 2009 May 30, Caitlin Fitzsimmons, “National: Internet: Wikipedia acts to stop Scientology ‘edit-warring’”, in The Guardian, page 12:

     “Wiki” articles are written and edited by users, with the aim of “neutral” accounts, but “edit-warring” has sought to portray Scientology in either a favourable or negative light.

   • 2010, John K. Waters, The Everything Guide to Social Media: All You Need to Know About Participating in Today’s Most Popular Online Communities, Avon, Mass.: Adams Media, F+W Media, Inc., →ISBN, page 185:

     Further up the ladder are editors with access to articles that have been restricted because of vandalism or “edit-warring.”

   • 2011 February 2, Justine Cassell, “A Culture of Editing Wars”, in The New York Times‎^[2], archived from the original on 6 February 2011:

     From the inside, on the other hand, Wikipedia may feel like a fight to get one’s voice heard. One gets a sense of this insider view from looking at the “talk page” of many articles, which rather than seeming like collaborations around the construction of knowledge, are full of descriptions of “edit-warring” — where successive editors try to cancel each others’ contributions out — and bitter, contentious arguments about the accuracy of conflicting points of view.

   • 2014, Dariusz Jemielniak, Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, →ISBN, page 223:

     WikiHate, wikihate Counterproductive editing attitude and behavior, especially tendentious, biased and personally antagonistic types of edit-warring.

   • 2014, Pnina Fichman; Noriko Hara, “Knowledge Sharing on Wikimedia Embassies”, in Pnina Fichman and Noriko Hara, editors, Global Wikipedia: International and Cross-Cultural Issues in Online Collaboration, Rowman & Littlefield, →ISBN, page 118:

     “Odd cross-wiki behaviour by someone in Germany; sometimes includes edit-warring and disruptive page creation [Bearbeiten]”

   • 2014 August 4, Caitlin Dewey, “Men’s rights activists think a “hateful” feminist conspiracy is ruining Wikipedia”, in The Washington Post‎^[3], archived from the original on 4 August 2014:

     And while Esmay cites several instances of feminist “bullying” and “censorship,” the talk and user pages — which record disciplinary action against Wikipedians — suggest that most MRAs were banned for edit-warring (i.e., redoing the same changes over かつ over), for editing a topic with a conflict of interest, or for making personal attacks against other editors — all of which are violations of Wikipedia’s terms.

   • 2015 April 30, “69 rewrites earn Coburn a Wiki-block”, in Scottish Daily Mail‎^[4]:

     An administrator wrote: ‘I have blocked you because despite previous explanations and a short block you have returned to edit-warring over the article. […]’

   • 2022, Danielle A. Morris-O’Connor; Andreas Strotmann; Dangzhi Zhao, “The colonization of Wikipedia: evidence from characteristic editing behaviors of warring camps”, in Journal of Documentation, volume 79, number 3, →DOI, pages 784–810:

     Quantitatively, the authors identify edit-warring camps across many conflict zones of the English language WP, and profile and compare success rates and typologies of camp edits in the corresponding topic areas. […] Through a large-scale quantitative study, the authors find that winner-take-all camps exhibit biasing editing behaviors to a much larger extent than the camps they successfully edit-war against, confirming findings of prior small-scale qualitative studies.