Endmyopia:Be bold

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Being bold

If there's an edit you want to make that you think improves the article, please make the edit. Believe that your point of view and the way you think the article should be is just as valid as the people who wrote the article originally.

There is really no point in spending a lot of time yelling into the void about whether a bunch of proposed edits that haven't even been written in wikitext and are just vague descriptions should be made. Like, at all.

Discussing edits before making them is a waste of editorial time, because 99% of edits go undisputed. What's worse is that if people actually start discussing your vague edits that haven't been made, now their time is being used up too. That time could be used for so many better things on-wiki and off - instead you're sitting around discussing uncontroversial edits that are guaranteed to improve the wiki if they're made.

When you should discuss

If someone reverts the edit, then you can go on to discuss the edit made. Send the editor a message on their talk page, in the forum, Discord server, wherever. Don't have edit wars where you repeatedly undo each other's edits forever.

You can also discuss changes to an article if sweeping changes are being made and you actively anticipate the changes are controversial and will likely be challenged. This is a high threshold, in most cases you should just make the edit.

Be bold everywhere, as much as possible

If there's a vandal clearly disrupting stuff and you're an admin, be bold and block them. If you want to suggest a new wiki feature, be bold and suggest it. Being bold is not limited to articles, it's not limited to minor grammatical changes - on the contrary the only limit is yourself Face-grin.svg

A few thoughts from Wikipedia

Go for it

Page Template:Quote/styles.css has no content.

Be bold can be explained in three words: "Go for it."

— The so-called experts at Wikipedia

Editors should forget about bureaucracy when editing this place. Throw bureaucracy and overthinking things in the trash where they belong. If there's an edit that you think improves the content of the article, waste no time in smacking that big orange Edit button and typing it out for all to see. Wikis like ours improve faster when people make the changes they wish they could see.

Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it

Page Template:Quote/styles.css has no content.

Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia.

— Massive brain Wikipedian. They have 6,000,000+ articles, maybe we can learn a thing or two?

In the time it takes for you to tell someone else that 'oh yeah, this thing can be changed', you probably could have changed it by now. Be confident in your abilities and do it yourself, it takes less time than telling someone else to do it, and it makes you a team player!

Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted

Page Template:Quote/styles.css has no content.

Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted.

— A wise Wikipedian, who clearly is a fan of trial and error

A typical feature of bold edits is a lack of confidence that other people will think the edit is any good. In cases like these, quite beneficial edits can go completely undone, and the wiki has not improved because you thought someone else might not like it. If you think the article will be better with the edit you have in mind, what makes you think other people would disagree?

See also

User:NottNott/Essays/A case against bureaucracy