There are many kinds of graffiti. The one that concerns this topic is sometimes called "tagging", and consists only of marking territory; signing some public surface without actually having a message to go with the signature. It has sometimes been likened to cats or dogs urinating over things that they consider theirs.

Something similar happens on WikiWikiWeb too. People add something to a page and sign it as if to say "I was here". What they add need not actually add value to the page. It may be a restatement of content elsewhere on the page. It may evaluate to "MeToo" or "I agree." It may be off-topic for the page.

If you've come to this page because someone marked your contribution as WikiTagging, please ask yourself what value your comments add. Is it something to benefit others who may read it, or something to give you the satisfaction of self-expression? Would you make the comment if it wasn't signed?

Maybe you should consider leaving your comments unsigned. People are more likely to refactor them into the flow of the page, and less likely to mark them as WikiTagging, if you do so.

----

I don't think that adding "I agree" and signing it should be classed as WikiTagging. If the information I am agreeing with is part of/open to discussion then I would consider it to be a valuable contribution to add my own support to those views. If I didn't sign it, then people would wonder "who is this person that agrees?". Similarly, if I have put forward a point of view that could be open to debate, I get a nice warm feeling if people tell me they agree. Whoever does the refactoring could then summarize the view and say who endorsed it. -- MattStephenson

''Does saying "I agree" add to an open discussion if it does not go further and give new and different reasons for agreeing? IMHO, few intellectual issues should be decided by majority vote. If the topic of discussion is such that a vote does add value, then there are better ways of tabulating it.''

 For:     xxxxx
 Opposed: xxx

''Per MeToo, the "nice warm feeling" of people agreeing with you is better expressed on your home page.''

----

Anyone else noticed people editing a page for the sake of getting to sign their contribution?

''Yes, and I've considered deleting newly-added comments that seemed superfluous to the discourse already on the page. I've not done so, out of concern that it might be an act equivalent to DisagreeByDeleting. Perhaps I've just not understood the comment, or perhaps it wasn't expressed well. Should it be left for a time to see what discussion it sparks, if it does, before deleting?''

Or marked with "Is this just WikiTagging?", perhaps. But if the comments are merely repetition of other content, that's probably just the author neglecting to realize that its already been said, or a MeToo syndrome. But what if someone puts in a complete ''non sequitur'', such as talking about one of the authors, or Wiki, or something?

''If it's off-topic for the page, I'd either delete it or (if I thought it had value) move it to a more appropriate place.''

''Now that this page has been created, it does give a convenient means to mark on-topic, but seemingly superfluous comments as WikiTagging and provide a means for the WikiGnome''''''s to sweep them away if they haven't been refactored in a week or two.''

----
See WikiFeint, MeToo, SilenceImpliesConsent, ToSignOrNotToSign, WikiOnWiki