[WikiEN-l] A narrower concept of boldness

[Ray Saintonge]

Mark Gallagher wrote:

>G'day The Mangoe,
>  
>
>>On 6/22/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at 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