 | This is an essay on Wikipedia:BRD and Wikipedia:Preserve pages. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: BRD is a justification for bold edits, not reversions. To use it as such uses BRD to justify exactly what it was designed to fight and usually violates Wikipedia's editing policy |
This essay details one of the most common abuses of the Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle, the confusion of that cycle with a “revert, discuss” strategy. The BRD strategy is intended as a way to smoke out most interested parties. However, many people use it to justify the ‘’behavior’’ of Most Interested Parties, reverting edits in contravention of wikipedia’s editing policy, wp:preserve. This essay will detail this mistake, and explain why “RD” is a violation of wikipedia’s editing policies.
What is RD?
editSimply put, “RD” is the use of a revert on the grounds of stimulating discussion.
Why is RD different from BRD?
editBRD is used as a justification for bold edits. It is for smoking out most interested parties on a page whose discussion has been completely bogged down. The overview explains BRD, what it’s for and how it works:
- Problem: Editing a particular page has become tricky, too many people are stuck discussing endlessly, and no progress can be made.
- How to proceed: Discover the Most Interested Persons, and reach a compromise/consensus with each, one by one.
Notice something here that’s very important. BRD as a strategy is a way for the bold editor to smoke out Most Interested Persons. In other words, BRD is a justification for a certain type of bold edit not a reversion.
RD on the other hand is used as a justification for a reversion It claims that a reversion may be used to generate discussion with a bold (and sometimes not so bold) editor.
Why is RD a misunderstanding of BRD?
editThe BRD strategy presupposes intransigent reverters who have bogged down a page to the point of lack of progress. It was never a justification for the behaviour of those intransigent editors. In fact, by acting as the reverter in a BRD cycle, you are behaving exactly in the manner that BRD is designed to combat. You have become exactly the type of intransigent reverter that BRD presupposes and tries to combat and who bogs down pages in the first place.
Why is RD a violation of policy?
editWikipedia’s editing policies are very clear. It says under wp:preserve: “’’Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't’’. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot.” Whenever you revert an edit with salvageable information, you violate this policy. It doesn’t matter if your intention is to “start a conversation”. Your intentions are irrelevant. You’ve just violated this policy. A wikipedia should never, ever remove salvageable information from an edit and an edit that has any salvageable information should not be reverted in order to start a conversation.
Since ownership is at least in part an attitude, it can never be proven. However, RD is typical owner behaviour.
This examples are from the ownership page: "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" or "Get consensus before you make such huge changes."
Like it or not, when you revert something and say, “Come discuss this with me”, you are telling them to get your permission. No one requires your permission to alter a page, which is why all reverts require grounds. Remember, when you say, “BRD” or “come talk to me” as justification for a revert, you didn’t give any grounds for your revert. When you make a revert without grounds, you are simply asserting your authority, that is, you are claiming to own the page.