Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
:::::::I agree that this is probably not the right forum, as the issue doesn't seem to be solvable by making changes to the essay. You would probably find other editors more amenable to your input if you quit calling them dense co-owners, though. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC) |
:::::::I agree that this is probably not the right forum, as the issue doesn't seem to be solvable by making changes to the essay. You would probably find other editors more amenable to your input if you quit calling them dense co-owners, though. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::::::To be fair, I never used that terminology until just now, and it's been going on for about a year. Anyway, I still think this essay should explicitly state that the BRD process does not supersede BURDEN, and unsourced or dubiously sourced material must stay out, even if it was the status quo, while discussion is taking place. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 22:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC) |
::::::::To be fair, I never used that terminology until just now, and it's been going on for about a year. Anyway, I still think this essay should explicitly state that the BRD process does not supersede BURDEN, and unsourced or dubiously sourced material must stay out, even if it was the status quo, while discussion is taking place. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 22:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Seems too rule-based and against the spirit of [[WP:CREEP]]. If having it in the policy isn't enough, adding it to an essay will accomplish squat. You could always point out that "optional" is the 9th word of this essay, though. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 03:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:37, 4 March 2016
![]() | Essays High‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | Editor Retention | |||
|
Change this page
My suggestion is to change the current title to "BOLD, discuss, re-edit", and the current content likewise. I suppose everyone understands the underlying reasons; just look at the discussions above here and at the pump.
x Carlotm (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- I have thought something similar for some years, and was considering writing a new essay to be perhaps called "BOLD, discuss, revert". I am rather tired, as are I suspect some others, of users who feel that it's not just acceptable to revert a good faith edit, but that this essay encourages the use of the revert tool before a discussion. I don't think it is ever acceptable to revert a good faith edit simply due to disagreement or not understanding the reasons for it (usually described in edit summaries as "no consensus" or - ironically - "discuss first") - discussion should take place before reverting, not after. I don't think, though, that this essay should be changed; there are some people who misunderstand or misuse it, but the principles behind it are sound: "If you are reverted, don't revert back; discuss first". SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Revert
I've reverted a note added by @SilkTork: that was unclear and IMO doesn't correspond to the spirit of the BRD procedure. First, the terms "BRDRDRD" and "BRDCE" are not explained and take a time to figure out what they're talking about. Second, achieving an explicit full consensus before resuming editing is not a requirement of either BRD nor WP:EDITCONSENSUS.
The idea of being BOLD is that the new edit might be the one that achieves consensus; BRD is about making informed edits instead of pure edit warring, not to stop editing altogether. BRD is a cycle, so following your terminology the proper procedure would be "BRDBRD...BRDBC", not "BRDCE". Diego (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't my note, it was a pre-existing essay note by User:GTBacchus that has been linked from this page for five years. I simply merged it in, as it was rather short, and hardly worth its own page. Your revert is an example of why reverting first and discussing afterwards is rarely the best option. ;-) Think of like: Do we shoot first and ask questions afterwards? Or do we ask questions first and then decide the best option? In this case you didn't ask questions, you just shot! Because you didn't ask questions, you didn't understand the situation, and your revert put in a link to Wikipedia:A note regarding BRD which redirects back here, even though you had just removed all the content related to that redirect. Now, if you feel the note isn't clear enough, then removing it from Wikipedia is not the way we do things. We prefer folks to attempt to improve, and move things forward. No worries, we live and learn, and next time you probably won't be so quick on the revert trigger!
- Anyway. From my understanding of the note, it is saying that BRD doesn't mean we should discuss revert discuss revert discuss revert, as that is an edit war, it is saying we should discuss until we get consensus and then make the edit, or the amended edit. There are four options open to us now: 1) Restore the edit with the same wording, 2) Restore the edit and improve the wording, 3) Restore the Wikipedia:A note regarding BRD page, 4) Delete the Wikipedia:A note regarding BRD page. Well, there is the fifth option of leaving things as they currently stand with a See also link that simply redirects back to this essay, but that's not really a viable option. I am not on Wikipedia much these days, so I won't have time to help you sort out the situation. I'll leave it up to you as you are a well meaning editor, and I trust you to do the right thing. (PS, I turned off ping years ago - if you do wish to discuss this matter with me, please leave a note on my talkpage). SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've started an AfD discussion regarding the note so that the community decides what to do with it. Diego (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- There is also another solution: replace the entire page with text and title that encourage editing and discourage reversions and edit wars (see above). Carlotm (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've started an AfD discussion regarding the note so that the community decides what to do with it. Diego (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion at WT:Drafts
This essay is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Clarification over main-space to draft-space moves. Unscintillating (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Relation to BURDEN and statute of limitations
I recently removed some dubious material, and was immediately reverted with a BRD rationale. But when I checked, it turned out the material was not protected by a long-standing "implied consensus" that it should stay in: it was only four weeks old, and hardly anything from either of the article's two owners gets challenged to begin with. So I was wondering, how "old" does an edit have to be to be "un-BRD-able"?
Also, should this page specify that unsourced material that is challenged should never be re-added without sources and discussion?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is a WP:ESSAY describing one particular method of collaborative editing and consensus building. WP:BURDEN is part of a WP:POLICY. VQuakr (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- I know. That's why I think this essay should never trump our policy. And yet I have been involved in countless conflicts where users link to this essay in order to overrule the policy that says the burden is on the party wishing to add material to the project. Wouldn't it be better if the essay stated directly that this interpretation is wrong? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- BRD just expresses something in the heart of the Wikipedia, that when there are content disputes, you work it through on the Talk page. There is no deadline here, so whether the content is in the article or not in the article while that discussion is taking place, is generally not a big deal (unless it involves a very very clear COPYVIO or BLP violation). BRD urges the one who made the change that got reverted to open a discussion and not edit war. This also makes sense practically, because that first editor is also the one who would cross past the three revert rule first, so they would lose an edit warring duel - they cannot "win" by edit warring anyway. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wait ... if someone else makes a bold edit and I revert it, haven't I made the first revert, so that the other party would be the one "winning" an edit war? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- BRD is an optional process. If someone implies it is mandatory, call them out on it. WP:BURDEN is policy - uncited information should not be restored without a source. Rather than edit warring, bring it to a noticeboard or use an RfC if normal talk page discussion is unproductive (don't edit war even if you are right). VQuakr (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'll try... but I have been doing so virtually every time. I have found that attempting to use the talk page to discuss with dnse users who just won't change their opinions no matter what I say only makes things worse, as both of us wind up making a dozen edits to the talk page in one day, and then if the dispute goes somewhere else I get accused of "bludgeoning the discussion"... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- What is "dnse"? VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- using the DR processes in WP is an art, indeed. It is not one that can be worked through in a hurry, and most content disputes that get ugly that I have seen, are driven by some strange urgency. Generally if you talk nicely and have a few go-rounds exploring things, and that fails, it is time to give up or use some content dispute DR mechanism to get wider input. If you do the latter it is usually good to propose that first before just doing it. btw If you are consistently hearing that you are bludgeoning, you are maybe going too many rounds on Talk before going to DR, or are doing those rounds too aggressively. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry.I meant "dense". I wasn't trying to be clever by hiding a potential insult behind a misspelling. I recently upgraded to an iPhone and I'm still getting used to the keypad and the total lack of a functioning auto-complete in English.
- Thing is, I don't even have a content dispute. I agree completely to 90% of the article content in question. I just think a section title should be changed to properly describe the material that all the other parties and I agree belongs in the article. But it's one of those trouble topic areas where a couple of incredibly prolific editors make mostly good-looking edits that only some of them only turn out to be poorly-sourced on close inspection, and any opposition is kind of ... unwelcome. Almost as unwelcome as I am on ANI -- three years ago this problem would have been solved in under 24 hours with a short block and a warning against OWN behaviour and abusing the policies and guidelines -- and essays! -- to this end, but the normal forums for dealing with user problems seem to have broken down of late; everything is a content-dispute being forum-shopped.
- By the way, it's incredibly ironic that the old "Request for comment/User conduct" is no longer in use but DRN is still up and running. DRN has something like a 5% success rate, and in the other 95% of cases looks to only make disputes worse...
- But that's about all I can say without this counting as forum-shopping and/or canvassing. I don't think any reasonable case for the latter could be made, since I have no idea who has this WT page on their watchlist, but I'm probably in the wrong place to post the above either way.
- Cheers!
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that this is probably not the right forum, as the issue doesn't seem to be solvable by making changes to the essay. You would probably find other editors more amenable to your input if you quit calling them dense co-owners, though. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- To be fair, I never used that terminology until just now, and it's been going on for about a year. Anyway, I still think this essay should explicitly state that the BRD process does not supersede BURDEN, and unsourced or dubiously sourced material must stay out, even if it was the status quo, while discussion is taking place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Seems too rule-based and against the spirit of WP:CREEP. If having it in the policy isn't enough, adding it to an essay will accomplish squat. You could always point out that "optional" is the 9th word of this essay, though. VQuakr (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- To be fair, I never used that terminology until just now, and it's been going on for about a year. Anyway, I still think this essay should explicitly state that the BRD process does not supersede BURDEN, and unsourced or dubiously sourced material must stay out, even if it was the status quo, while discussion is taking place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that this is probably not the right forum, as the issue doesn't seem to be solvable by making changes to the essay. You would probably find other editors more amenable to your input if you quit calling them dense co-owners, though. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'll try... but I have been doing so virtually every time. I have found that attempting to use the talk page to discuss with dnse users who just won't change their opinions no matter what I say only makes things worse, as both of us wind up making a dozen edits to the talk page in one day, and then if the dispute goes somewhere else I get accused of "bludgeoning the discussion"... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- BRD just expresses something in the heart of the Wikipedia, that when there are content disputes, you work it through on the Talk page. There is no deadline here, so whether the content is in the article or not in the article while that discussion is taking place, is generally not a big deal (unless it involves a very very clear COPYVIO or BLP violation). BRD urges the one who made the change that got reverted to open a discussion and not edit war. This also makes sense practically, because that first editor is also the one who would cross past the three revert rule first, so they would lose an edit warring duel - they cannot "win" by edit warring anyway. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- I know. That's why I think this essay should never trump our policy. And yet I have been involved in countless conflicts where users link to this essay in order to overrule the policy that says the burden is on the party wishing to add material to the project. Wouldn't it be better if the essay stated directly that this interpretation is wrong? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)