on 6/23/07 10:52 AM, Mark Gallagher at m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day David,
(I will *pay you* to learn to post correctly ...)
As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good ends; most good editing doesn't need it. It is usually used as the attempted justification for edits against the consensus. Personally I'd rather remove it from the guidelines altogether, but it is referred to so many times that perhaps it should be written in a way that would make it less likely to be misused. I see there's an active discussion there.
Not long after I attained adminship, I was cruising with my homies and homiettes at #moseisleycantina (since renamed to #wikipedia), when a user came in requesting urgent assistance of the sort only a newish admin could provide.
It seemed a newbie had come across a long and popular but ultimately poorly-written article, and was making copyedits, replacing the headings with decent phrases, and other nefarious improvements that only newbies seem able to make.
Our friend, the #wikipedia worrier, had reverted his edits and left a note on his talkpage saying, "Don't make major improvements to articles without first discussing them on the talkpage." He was, however, worried that the newbie might re-offend, and wanted me to help keep him in line.
"Be bold!" was written for that newbie, and that user. In the world of our friend, and other editors who would interfere with WP:BOLD, it is more difficult for a Broken Telephone process wonk to pass through the eye of a needle than for a helpful newbie to summon up the courage to improve our encyclopaedia. That's a grim world, and I want no part of it.
"Be bold!" is a worthy, nay sacred, guideline, and it is not to be trifled or tampered with. Shame be upon those who would ignore it, twist it, misuse it, dilute it, ruin it, in the name of improving our encyclopaedia!
Yes!!! Self-confidence is the result of a successfully survived risk.
Marc