|This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.|
|This page in a nutshell: Please feel free to make improvements to the encyclopedia|
|Other guideline categories|
Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD) can be explained in three words: "Go for it". The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought – Why aren't these pages copy edited? Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit articles: it wants you to do it. This does require a certain amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be. Also, when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a "mute spectator": be bold and drop your opinion there!
Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted. The early advocate of trial and error followed by observation to gain knowledge, Francis Bacon, said, "For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity." Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war. Think about it this way: if you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough.
... but please be careful!
Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that you take care of the common good and not edit disruptively or recklessly. Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted easily, usually painlessly, and it is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further. But some significant changes can be long-lasting and harder to fix. If you're unsure of anything, just ask for advice.
Also, changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page.
Being bold is not an excuse to, even temporarily, violate the policy on material about living persons.
Often it is easier to see that something is not right rather than to know exactly what would be right. We do not require that everyone be bold. After all, commenting that something in an article is incorrect can be the first step to getting it fixed. It is true, though, that problems are more certain to be fixed, and will probably be fixed faster, if you are bold enough to do it yourself.
Although editors are encouraged to be bold in updating articles, more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces. Such pages are identified by a namespace prefix. For example, this page, Wikipedia:Be bold, has the "Wikipedia:" prefix; if it were called simply Be bold (with no prefix) it would be an article.
Problems may arise for a variety of reasons in different contexts in non-article namespaces. These problems should be taken into account in deciding whether to be bold, and how bold to be.
Wikipedia does not "enshrine" old practices: bold changes to its policies and guidelines are sometimes the best way to allow the encyclopedia to adapt and improve. In this case, “bold” refers to boldness of idea; such ideas are most commonly raised and discussed first to best formulate their implementation.
The admonition "but please be careful" is especially important in relation to policies and guidelines, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won, knife-edge consensus – which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background. In these cases, it is also often better to discuss potential changes first. However, spelling and grammatical errors can and should be fixed as soon as they are noticed.
Discussing changes to other Wikipedia-space pages on the talk page is also a good idea. If nothing else, it will provide an explanation of the changes for later editors. Most such pages are collections of arguments placed in Wikipedia space for later reference, so the same arguments don't need to be made over and over again.
One must be especially careful when being bold with templates: updating them can have far reaching consequences. This is because template changes can affect a large number of pages with a single edit. Moreover, some templates also form part of wide-ranging, uniform systems of templates across Wikipedia, such as infobox and stub templates. Templates may also have complex source code that can easily be broken by untested changes (although they can fortunately be corrected with a single revert).
Because of these concerns, many heavily used templates are indefinitely protected from editing. Before editing templates, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects. Templates often have associated sandbox and testcases pages; respectively these are a place for the proposed modified template, and a place where the proposal may be trialed in comparison with the existing version.
Creating new categories or reorganizing the category structure may come to affect many pages. Consider the guidelines on categorization and overcategorization, and if what you're doing might be considered controversial (especially if it concerns categories for living people), propose changes at Categories for discussion, also mentioning them on pages of appropriate WikiProjects.
Be bold in adding information to the description of an existing image. However, new images should be uploaded with new names rather than overwriting old ones. Doing otherwise risks having the old image confused with the new one. Therefore you must always be careful.
It is generally recommended that you do not edit another Wikipedian's user page or comments left on talk pages (other than your own, and even then do not be reckless). Fixing vandalism is nearly always welcome, even on user pages. Specific users will let you know if they find your changes inappropriate or if you have given incorrect information.
Regarding changes to graphical layout? See the next section. Note that the color scheme used for portals is not necessarily arbitrary. For example, most portals related to countries use the colors of the nation's flag. It is a good idea to propose design changes on the talk page first.
Graphical layout changes
Making major changes to the graphical layout of certain pages that are not articles requires caution (examples below). It is often best to test changes first (in a sandbox page in your userspace, or a subpage of the page in question), and to discuss the proposed change with other editors before making it live. When many users edit pages for layout, different plans can conflict, and the page may get worse rather than better.
This is particularly true of highly visible pages, such as those linked to from the navigation boxes on the left of the screen. These often use intricate formatting to convey their information, and a lot of work has gone into making them as user-friendly as possible. Moreover some pages form groups whose formatting is intended to be uniform. You should not make unapproved design edits to these types of pages. Examples include the Main Page (which in any case is permanently protected), the Community Portal, the Featured content group of pages, and the group consisting of Portal:Contents and its subpages, as well as Portal:Current events. This does not apply to articles or normal portals.
- Article Rescue Squadron
- BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Defending article quality
- Don't revert due to "no consensus"
- Edit this proposal
- Editing policy
- Ignore all rules
- IPs are human too
- Old dogs and new tricks
- WikiProject Usability
- User:NotMe, a humorous essay
- Bacon, Francis (1625). Essayes or Counsels, Civill and Morall.
|Wikipedia – the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit|