[WikiEN-l] Time for a rant

[FT2]

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.