Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:25, 19 November 2021

This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle page.

This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Shortcut

WP:Short BRD

This page in a nutshell: You should discuss and collaborate instead of edit warring.

This page is a short explanation of what some editors incorrectly believe the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) to be. It aims to explain what editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD.

The actual BRD is an optional one-on-one negotiation tactic. It is not always appropriate, and BRD even lists a variety of situations in which you shouldn't follow it and alternatives that might be more appropriate.

If an editor told you to that "you have follow BRD" or that "BRD is practically policy", they almost certainly don't mean that you need to follow the real BRD. They actually mean that you need to follow the policy at Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Specifically, these editors are telling you that you need to stop reverting and starting discussing now.

Simple steps

If your edit is met with resistance by another editor, do not restore your edit as that could be edit warring. Instead, go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter. (You're more likely to get a response if you ping the reverting editor.)
Find out why the editor reverted your edit, and seek an agreement about what to do.
After you have reached an agreement, one of you should make the change to the article (unless you all agreed not to change the article).

Alternatively, if the reverter's initial edit summary pointed to a clear and easy way to improve your edit, then (if you agree with their advice), you can try that form of edit. Such an edit is not a repetition of the original edit and is generally not viewed as a problem, but be careful to avoid misunderstandings by adding a clear edit summary or leaving a note on the talk page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Supplement|pages=[[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]] page|shortcut=WP:Short BRD}}
-{{nutshell|[[WP:BRD|BRD]] is a method to enforce [[Help:Talk pages|discussion]] and [[collaborative editing|collaboration]] to avoid [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]].}}
+{{nutshell|You should [[Help:Talk pages|discuss]] and [[collaborative editing|collaborate]] instead of [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]].}}
-This is a shortened version of the [[WP:BRD|BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD)]] page with focus on using BRD as a method to enforce [[Help:Talk pages|discussion]] and [[collaborative editing|collaboration]] to avoid [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]].
-The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a way to deal with any form of [[WP:Be bold|BOLD]] edit that is challenged by [[WP:Reverting|REVERSION]], whether it's an addition, deletion or other change. It enforces [[Help:Talk pages|DISCUSSION]] and [[collaborative editing|collaboration]] to avoid [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]]. Look at a reversion as a [[stop sign]] and immediate [[detour]] to the talk page.
-If your edit is met with resistance by another editor, do not restore your edit as that would be edit warring. Instead, go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter with that editor. (Remember to [[Help:Notifications|ping]] them.) Find out why the editor reverted your edit and seek to reach a consensus about what to do. If their initial [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] pointed to a clear and easy way to improve the edit to their satisfaction, then, if you agree, you can try that form of edit. Such an edit is not a repetition of the original edit and is generally not viewed as a violation of BRD, but be careful to avoid misunderstandings.
-== BRD is a method to enforce collaboration ==
 [[File:Warsaw Negotiation Round Senate of Poland 2014 01.JPG | thumb | 300px | right |'''[[Help:Using talk pages | <center>Talk page]] negotiation table'''<p> "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."<br>
 <small>by [[User:Valjean|Valjean]]. From ''[[WP:NEUTRALEDIT]]''</small><br><br>
@@ Line 18: / Line 10: @@
 <small>by [[Dave Mason]] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8_FOQ7-P30 (Listen)]</small>]]
-Wikipedia is an example of an [[open collaboration|open collaborative editing project]] on a large scale, which can be both good and bad. Contributors often arrive with the unrealistic expectation that their alterations will be met with immediate acceptance and approval, but they are often disappointed. It's a good day when your edits are not reverted, and if no one reverts after a couple of days, congratulations! If your edits are relatively unchanged after many years, you are among the fortunate few.
-Many editors understand the need and requirement for collaborative editing, but many do not, especially [[Newbie|newcomers]]. There are many things [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]], and it comes as a shock to some that this place where [[WP:About#Contributing|anyone can edit]] doesn't immediately accept their brilliant additions, or that it isn't actually a different [[WP:NOTWEBHOST|form of personal blog or web hosting service]].
-The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a way to deal with any form of [[WP:Be bold|BOLD]] edit that is challenged by [[WP:Reverting|REVERSION]], whether it's an addition, deletion or other change. It enforces [[Help:Talk pages|DISCUSSION]] and [[collaborative editing|collaboration]] to avoid [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]]. Look at a reversion as a [[stop sign]] and immediate [[detour]] to the talk page.
-If your edit is met with resistance by another editor, do not restore your edit as that would be edit warring. Instead, go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter with that editor. (Remember to [[Help:Notifications|ping]] them.) Find out why the editor reverted your edit and seek to reach a consensus about what to do.
-If their initial [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] pointed to a clear and easy way to improve the edit to their satisfaction, then, if you agree, you can try that form of edit. Such an edit is not a repetition of the original edit and is generally not viewed as a violation of BRD, but be careful to avoid misunderstandings. If you encounter a situation where other editors are already edit warring over some issue, do not join their efforts by editing that part of the article, but instead join the discussion and seek consensus.
+This page is a short explanation of what some editors [[wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions|incorrectly believe]] the [[WP:BRD|BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD)]] to be.  It aims to explain '''what editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD'''.
-== Edit warring ==
+The actual BRD is an optional one-on-one negotiation tactic.  It is not always appropriate, and BRD even lists a variety of situations in which you shouldn't follow it and alternatives that might be more appropriate.
-Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold when updating the encyclopedia, but not after resistance is met, because it values collaboration in the editing process even higher. This is a group project and no editor has a right to expect their edits to remain untouched or unchanged. If your edit meets resistance, do not respond by edit warring. Brute force attempts to change content in the face of objections are not welcome, and a revert is an objection to your edit.
+If an editor told you to that "you have follow BRD" or that "BRD is practically policy", they almost certainly ''don't'' mean that you need to follow the real BRD.  They actually mean that you need to follow the policy at [[Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing]].  Specifically, these editors are telling you that you need to stop [[WP:Reverting|reverting]] and starting [[Help:Talk pages|discussing]] now.
-Edit warring is always wrong, so no matter how right you are, don't do it. Even [[Nobel Prize]] laureates have been [[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]] and [[WP:Banning policy|banned]] from Wikipedia for doing it. [[m:MPOV|Being right]], a [[subject-matter expert]], or the smartest person in the room is never an excuse. We are all equal here. Differences of opinion must be settled through discussion, not editing and edit summaries, so immediately stop editing that part of the article and start discussing. BRD is an attempt to force editors to [[WP:AVOIDEDITWAR|avoid or stop edit wars]] and to [[Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing|engage in discussion]] on the article's [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]]. Editors who don't wish to collaborate can still be useful as [[WP:WikiGnome|WikiGnomes]] who make uncontroversial edits. Alternatively, they can leave the project as this place isn't for everyone.
+== Simple steps ==
-Sometimes people don't realize that bold editing in controversial areas doesn't work very well. BRD forces them to break with any sense of [[WP:Ownership of content|ownership]] they may feel about the topic, article, or piece of content. Suddenly they are met with a reversion that forces them to collaborate with a stranger. Unfortunately, many choose to edit war instead.
+# If your edit is met with resistance by another editor, do not restore your edit as that could be [[wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. Instead, go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter. (You're more likely to get a response if you [[Help:Notifications|ping]] the reverting editor.)
-Some, but not necessarily most, experienced editors understand that BRD need not be invoked in an edit summary before they automatically respond to a revert by using discussion. They realize that edit warring is harmful and that it's better to seek some form of meeting of the minds, even if a true [[WP:Consensus|consensus]] may not be reached. Resistance is not an act of war, but an invitation to discuss the issue. Failure to accept that invitation by repeating the bold edit is the first step in an edit war. It reveals a [[WP:BATTLE|battlefield mentality]].
+# Find out why the editor reverted your edit, and seek an agreement about what to do.
+# After you have reached an agreement, one of you should make the change to the article (unless you all agreed not to change the article).
+Alternatively, if the reverter's initial [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] pointed to a clear and easy way to improve your edit, then (if you agree with their advice), you can try that form of edit. Such an edit is not a repetition of the original edit and is generally not viewed as a problem, but be careful to avoid misunderstandings by adding a clear [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] or leaving a note on the talk page.
-Even though [[WP:Consensus|consensus]] can sometimes be used by a group of [[WP:Fringe theories|fringe]] editors to temporarily violate the [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] policy, the nature of editing at Wikipedia means that an [[WP:AGF|assumption of good faith]] involves collaborative editing. An editor who fails to collaborate, no matter how right and proper their edits are in relation to all policies, will not succeed. Without collaboration between editors who may hold opposing POV, nothing functions as intended, and Wikipedia policies won't work in an uncollaborative environment. The edits of uncollaborative editors are doomed to failure until they learn this, and they often get blocked before this can happen.
 [[Category:Wikipedia essays about consensus]]