On 8/13/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: I recall Jimbo once said a long long time ago that a revert is akin to a slap in the face. I've grown used to people not understanding this when they revert someone else. Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

very knowingly engaged in BRD, and > was well aware that the R was going to happen as part of the road to D).

But to sympathize with the main point, blanket "I don't like this" reverts of good faith plausible edits, are usually far less helpful than discussion, or revert + discussion.

I still can't work out what B, R and D are. Enlighten me please? :)

> I still can't work out what B, R and D are. Enlighten me please? :)

Bold-Revert-Discuss

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

BRD was wrong from the beginning,

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

That may be true, but there are also reasonable editors working on aircraft articles... If you have problems with someone on one of them, ping me, and I can get a couple of others involved as well.