Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Well, I was keeping various things in mind. In our
very own inane
jargon, WP:BOLD is qualified by "Often it is easier to see that
something is not right rather than to know exactly what /would/ be
right", which is something of a plea for measured responses, and WP:BRD
with "In a way, you're actively provoking another person with an edit
they may (strongly) disagree on [...]". I actually don't see that the
issue under discussion is a new type of issue. There is a new type of
context, which is what I hoped to be addressing.
BRD: Read "mitgated but still adversarial editing cycle" (see
[[WP:PX]] bottom entry). As much as I agree with the issue, Jimbo's
BOLD action appears to have been a shock to the systems of a great
number of people who had all this time thought that seriously bold
actions required consensus-first. Wikimedia.
Hopefully Jimbo will soon write up his views as a formal argument and
then in discussion we can weigh their validity. Just how arguments are
weighed afterward is the interesting "context" as you put it.
-SC