Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page. |
The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a method for reaching consensus on any wiki with revision control. A cross between the harmonious editing club process and "Ignore all rules", it is particularly useful for breaking deadlocks, keeping discussion moving forward, and will still work where standard dispute resolution has failed. Note that this process must be used with care and diplomacy; some editors will see it as a challenge so be considerate and patient.
Contents |
[edit] Overview
- Boldly make the desired change to the page.
- Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT Revert back!
- Discuss with the reverter (or at most one additional person). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change.
Wash, rinse, repeat. If no one reverts after a couple of days, congratulations! You got out of the impasse and got changes done.
[edit] Differences from other methods
At first glance, the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle can easily be mistaken for just a special name for the bold editing pattern or even normal editing policy. However there are several fundamental differences between BRD and other processes.
[edit] Cases for Use
When other methods have failed, when cooperation has broken down, is when BRD is most effective. Examples of these include cases where:
- Two factions are engaged in an edit war
- Discussion has died out with no agreement being reached
- Active discussion is not producing results
- Your view differs significantly from the majority on a loaded subject
- Local consensus is opposed to making any changes whatsoever (when pages are frozen, "policy", or high profile)
BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. You can try using it in less volatile situations, but take care when doing so. Some have even taken to simply declaring their intent by adding [[WP:BRD]] at the front of their edit summary. This seems to help keep people from taking as much offense at proposed changes.
BRD will generally fail if there is a preexisting consensus against the specific change you'd like to make. Also, various forms of page protection and access controls will defeat BRD, in which case you will need to get those protections lifted before attempting to use it.
[edit] Tactics
The conscious intent of BRD is to submit a change that is unlikely to be the new consensus. Instead, it draws a response from someone who cares enough about the page to have it on their watchlist, and establishes a concrete frame of reference for discussion.
Once you find someone who disagrees strongly enough to revert your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version, you can proceed toward consensus with that one person. Each pass through the cycle finds a new person to work with, eventually forming consensus with all of the interested parties. As such, BRD is generally not an end unto itself - it moves the process past a blockage, and helps get people get back to cooperative editing.
[edit] Speed
Some have also pointed out that BRD works best at much faster pace than other methods. Limiting your discussion to one other individual at a time allows for more responsive communication methods (such as email) and faster resolution of issues. Like emergency surgery, BRD is meant to quickly get the pages in question back to a state where other editing processes can begin to function again.
[edit] Details
For each step in the cycle here are some points to remember.
[edit] Bold
- Frame the coming debate: Only make the changes you absolutely need to. Bold doesn't have to be big, and keeping your edit focused is more likely to yield results than making an over-reaching change.
- Expect strong resistance even hostility: Deliberately getting people to revert or respond to you feels a bit like disruption. Trying to change things certainly does, even when it's an obvious change for the better! If you do this cycle perfectly, most people will grudgingly accept you. Do it less than perfectly, and they will certainly be mad at you. Do it wrong, and they will hate your guts.
[edit] Revert
- Revert is a failure on their part not yours: While it isn't something you want to mention, if your edits are not preposterous and they are reverted, that person is essentially saying, "I think your edits need improvement, but I can't think of a better way to incorporate their view point into the page."
- Consider non-revert changes carefully before proceeding: Even if someone submits significant changes instead of reverting, you can still continue the discussion. However, read the new changes and take a minute to consider if they constitute a reasonable compromise. If you can skip the discussion and short-circuit the cycle, do so.
[edit] Discuss
- Adhere to Wikiquette and civility guidelines: The easiest way to break this cycle is to be uncivil. Try to lead by example and keep your partner in the same mind set.
- Talk with at most two partners at once. As long as the discussion is moving forward, do not feel the need to respond to everyone, as this increases the chance of discussion losing focus and going far afield. Stay on point and pick your responses. If discussion dies off, you can always go back and get yourself reverted again to find (or refind) other interested parties.
- There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version. If you successfully complete this cycle, then you will have a new consensus version. If you fail, you will have a different kind of consensus version.
- "Policy" , "consensus", and "procedure" alone are not valid: These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis. You are disagreeing, that is okay. Do not back off immediately, BUT!:
- Listen very carefully: You are trying to get the full and considered views of those who care enough to disagree with your edit. If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time. You should not accept, "It's policy, live with it." On the other hand, you should completely understand the implications when someone explains to you, "The flurbeling you suggest caused very bad barbelism, that's why we decided to always floop before we fleep instead."
- Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions, so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even.
[edit] Bold (again)
- Let them apply agreed upon changes: If they don't want to, that's okay, but be sure to offer. The offer alone shows deference and respect. If they accept, the change history will clearly show they signed off on the change, and they will also have control of the precise wording (keeping you from accidentally applying a change different than the one they expected). Also, on the English Wikipedia and other projects with similar policies, this prevents you from falling afoul of the 3 revert rule.
- Assume this revision will not be the final version: You do not have to get it all done in one edit. If you can find consensus on some parts, make those changes, and let them settle. This will give everyone a new point to build from. Having completed one successful cycle, you may also find it easier to get traction for further changes, or may find you have reached a reasonable compromise and can stop.
