Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day The Mangoe,
On 6/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The main reasoning behind BOLD is the fact that it's easy to undo any mistakes. That holds for (most) administrative actions as well as basic editing, so why wouldn't BOLD apply?
But the problem is that it isn't that easy. 3RR gives whoever makes the first change an advantage: their opponent will get hit by the rule first. Being BOLD in policy is a major cause of The Wrong Version, because it's likely that disputes will get the text locked in the changed version.
This shows a major misunderstanding of 3RR, BOLD, and The Wrong Version (although you may have been ironic with that last one). I'm not, however, surprised.
The danger with being bold in policy lies in the inability to distinguish between a proposal and an accepted policy. It also brings us to that grey area where a seasoned policy wonk's bold policy change can be explained as clarification, and a newbie's bold clarification can be condemned as a radical policy change. This is precisely an area that is in serious need of review.
3RR has never been anything but a short term emergency solution to a problem.
If there is such a thing as a "Wrong Version", perhaps it could be considered in contrast with "Stable versions" if that long awaited idea ever gets off the ground.
Ec