on 6/23/07 10:52 AM, Mark Gallagher at m.g.gallagher(a)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