Wikipedia:Bold-refine: Difference between revisions
Jaredscribe (talk | contribs) emphasis is on final goal of |
Our readers aren't usually students |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{nutshell|Clarifies a method of [[wp:discuss|discursive process]] in collaborative writing that empowers researchers and writers, seeks consensus to replace [[WP:BRDR]] as a recommendation, and proposes a preventive strategy favoring [[WP:Bold]] refinement and enabling [[wp:obversion]] to overcome the putrefying effect of a current policy that gives advantage to unjustified or [[wp:tendentious]] [[wp:reversion]]s by incumbent editors who may be lazy, incompetent, biased, or distracted}} |
{{nutshell|Clarifies a method of [[wp:discuss|discursive process]] in collaborative writing that empowers researchers and writers, seeks consensus to replace [[WP:BRDR]] as a recommendation, and proposes a preventive strategy favoring [[WP:Bold]] refinement and enabling [[wp:obversion]] to overcome the putrefying effect of a current policy that gives advantage to unjustified or [[wp:tendentious]] [[wp:reversion]]s by incumbent editors who may be lazy, incompetent, biased, or distracted}} |
||
The '''Bold—Refine''' process is the ideal collaborative writing cycle, also called the '''[[WP:Bold|Bold]]—Refine—Deliver''' cycle, because the emphasis is on [[telos|final goal]] of '''Delivering''' an [[WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA]] to the |
The '''Bold—Refine''' process is the ideal collaborative writing cycle, also called the '''[[WP:Bold|Bold]]—Refine—Deliver''' cycle, because the emphasis is on [[telos|final goal]] of '''Delivering''' an [[WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA]] to the readers, rather than merely editing the work of writers, or merely talking about it. Still required, writers may "talk" primarily in the edit summaries and in multiple drafts of wikitext itself, instead of or prior to "talking" on the talk page: this is an efficient a way of acheiving {{slink|WP:Consensus#Through_editing}}. '''Bold—Refine—Deliver''' prioritizes the reader first, the researcher second, the writer/translator third, the "editor" and [[wp:wikilawyer|wikilawyer]] fourth, and the bureaucrats and admins and last (and least). "Discussion" is necessary, though subordinate, and you may read [[WP:What wikipedia is not]], for an exhaustive proof of this. |
||
==Research, Analyze, Refine== |
==Research, Analyze, Refine== |
||
Revision as of 18:15, 7 April 2022
 | This is an essay on WP:Discussion between scholarly writers and researchers with the goal of WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. 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: Clarifies a method of discursive process in collaborative writing that empowers researchers and writers, seeks consensus to replace WP:BRDR as a recommendation, and proposes a preventive strategy favoring WP:Bold refinement and enabling wp:obversion to overcome the putrefying effect of a current policy that gives advantage to unjustified or wp:tendentious wp:reversions by incumbent editors who may be lazy, incompetent, biased, or distracted |
The Bold—Refine process is the ideal collaborative writing cycle, also called the Bold—Refine—Deliver cycle, because the emphasis is on final goal of Delivering an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA to the readers, rather than merely editing the work of writers, or merely talking about it. Still required, writers may "talk" primarily in the edit summaries and in multiple drafts of wikitext itself, instead of or prior to "talking" on the talk page: this is an efficient a way of acheiving WP:Consensus § Through editing. Bold—Refine—Deliver prioritizes the reader first, the researcher second, the writer/translator third, the "editor" and wikilawyer fourth, and the bureaucrats and admins and last (and least). "Discussion" is necessary, though subordinate, and you may read WP:What wikipedia is not, for an exhaustive proof of this.
Research, Analyze, Refine
In response to a WP:Bold contribution that may be incomplete, poorly worded, or unreferenced, consider how you can PRESERVE the good and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Do the RESEARCH, or at least the ANALYSIS, and then make a second CONTRIBUTION that refines the first.
Partial reversion) retains the part of the contribution that is acceptable, while giving an adequate edit summary: STATE THE CAUSE of reversion, and invite the contributor to either refine and improve his contribution or else JUSTIFY it prior to re-submission.
If someone contributes a plausible but uncited claim, do the research! In the age of online information, you should take at least 20 seconds to do a web search before reverting. If the claim is justifiable, but you are too lazy or busy to afford the ~2 minutes necessary to justify it with a citation, then simply add a {{citation needed}} template. Or ask the question {{who?}}, or {{where?}}. Give the contributor time to justify the claim, at least a couple hours, and maybe even a couple days or weeks. Readers in the meantime will know that the claim is {{dubious}}, and if you ask, maybe one of them will {{clarify}}. If you are unable or unwilling to refine an imperfect but constructive contribution, consider doing nothing. Maybe someone else will do the research. In any case, the encyclopedia will survive without you.
And if you must do a complete revert, STATE THE CAUSE in the edit summary, so that the contributor can respond to your objections while making a case in discussion, as per WP:BRD. The reversion must be a form of "discussion", else it is mere wp:status quo stonewalling. Refusal to address the substantive content question in a revert summary, is wp:tendentious laziness, which is sufficient grounds for wp:obversion, as it increases friction, discourages newcomers, and reduces the overall quality of the encyclopedia and pleasure of editing it.
How to Obvert
As a sub-species of reversion, the same principles, guidelines, and warnings apply to obversion: do it only when necessary. If another competent editor has made a partial reversion, it is better to submit a second draft as a new contribution rather than as an obversion. This way both parties will be "joined" in a collaboration.
In response to a competent reversion, in which the editor has STATED SUFFICIENT CAUSE in the edit summary, you must modify your contribution and submit a second draft. In the edit summary, ANSWER THE CAUSE, and this constitutes adequate discursive response for this stage of the scholarly discussion.
In response to a dubious reversion in which the editor has stated INSUFFICIENT CAUSE, you may obvert to your bold contribution, but you MUST ANSWER his objection in the edit summary, by stating why you hold it to be insufficient.
Either way, you must give justification in the edit summary: you must answer by GIVING AN ACCOUNT. This demonstrates a GOOD FAITH effort to engage in a dialectic process, and will protect later you from unwarranted charges of edit warring.
Hypothetical Scenarios
- Bo De (presumed good)
- Bo Tp (good but could be better)
- BoRfRf.. De (best)
- BRvOb De (ok)
- BRvObRf De (ok)
- BoRvObRf Tp (ok)
- BoRvObRvOb Rf, Tp, or De (ok)
- Beyond this is edit war, which is not ok.
Rf is a refined counter-proposal. If it is self-explanatory, copy the wikitext itself into the edit summary, which will provide adequate justification of the refinement. De is deliver. Tp is talk page. (These outlines assume that justification is given at every Rv , Ob stage of refinement, else either or both may be considered belligerent operations.)
Editorial opinions and commentary
![[icon]](/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. |