Just so--the established principle was wrong from the beginning. I'm not talking about the WP page justifying it--I'm talking about the whole idea of trying to do constructive work in a system based upon provocation and intimidation.
I understand the intent, but I always emotionally respond to B as being an attack, and to R as an insult. In editing, that's what I see universally. Once these emotions have been aroused, yes, it is possible to continue calmly, but it is not easy to do so, and most people cannot do it. For myself, I do not trust myself to continue constructively once such an exchange has occurred, and I therefore normally do not edit further any article where I encounter that practice. That's probably because I do not regard making an encyclopedia as a contact sport where all the apparent fighting is done in play.
My psychological device for working at WP is to avoid commitment over any one article or issue. Anyone who wants me to stop editing "their" article need only be sufficiently hostile. I could do much more here if I knew I would be received politely. At present, I simply will not work on articles of any direct personal concern.
On 8/14/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Disagree,
Even before it was formally written, the principle of it -- be bold, and see what others think, if they don't like it then discuss and collaborate rather than fall out - was an established principle.
BRD merely gave it a name and a description, so others could see what was going on and not stress over it. Whether or not formally titled and given its own acronym, it's been a remarkably useful and positive approach, under sensible usage by skilled editors.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of David Goodman Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:23 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Time for a rant
BRD was wrong from the beginning, and is the childish way to play a game, not the constructive way to build an encyclopedia. Its a certain way to start out on the wrong footing, and only an object being designed for those who would rather fight than write would have even imagined it.
I have never seen it produce a good synthesis. If the idea is to break up ownership of an article it doesn't do it--the owners just come together and attack the intruder. I've sometime done it out of impatience, and it's even worked once or twice, when I've been able to sound intimidating enough. I feel ashamed thinking of when i used it--it would always have been better to say, I don't think this will stand, and unless you can give me a good reason, I'm going to delete it--and when a reason is given, then to suggest a compromise, and make the compromise the first actual edit.
When it's been used against something I've written, it greatly decreases the chance that I'll agree--any normal person who wants to survive, when attacked, defends himself--unless I feel my position is too weak to stand--but then I'd agree all the more if asked and given a chance to think first.
BRD is editing by intimidation. Where it belongs, is as a subtype of NPA, and there should be warning templates for its use.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l