Wikipedia:Short BRD

This is a shortened version of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) page with focus on the crux of BRD and how it can be used to encourage discussion and collaboration instead of edit warring.

The focus here is not on the motivations of the one making the BOLD edit, as all editors have a right to make bold edits for many reasons. We should start with the assumption that the editor thinks (maybe mistakenly) their edit will improve the article. REVERSION of any BOLD edit is an objection that should be viewed as a stop sign and immediate detour pointing to the DISCUSSION page where the involved editors can vet the edit and work out their differences. Edit warring is always wrong and should be nipped in the bud, so stick to discussion. All editing of that content in the article should be stopped during this time, leaving the status quo version of that content in place.

This page describes what is nearly always the best procedure when an edit is reverted, but there are exceptions to every rule, and the BRD page has suggestions for exceptional situations where BRD may not work or be the best move.

Short version
The crux of BRD as described here is a simplified, three step, flowchart of the content creation process. Many edits, and nearly all controversial ones, go through this process. Simpler edits that are completely uncontroversial (so-called "minor" edits), are rarely reverted.


 * 1) BOLD: An editor makes a change to an article. At Wikipedia, Be bold doesn't mean big, strong or flashy. It just means "Go for it" and "Don't be shy." Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it.
 * 2) REVERT: Another editor objects by reverting the change. Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted.
 * 3) DISCUSS: Both editors meet on the talk page and collaboratively discuss what to do about the situation.

Longer version

 * 1) BOLD: If you think you can improve existing content, WP:BOLD gives you the right to try by making an addition, deletion, or alteration. Successful editors are rarely reverted because they do their work well before making an edit. Note that the moment you make your edit by saving it, you lose ownership of any content you added, and anyone else has a right to change your edit. Consider your edit a submission that must be evaluated by others. With contentious content, it is often better to skip the bold edit and go directly to the talk page and ask for help in developing the content.
 * 2) REVERT: If other editors have objections, they may revert the bold change so they can subject it to an active vetting process on the talk page. This is a form of quality control: "Does this change meet the demands of our policies and guidelines (PAG) for editorial neutrality, quality, balance, sourcing, and other factors described in our PAG?" At this stage, do not restore your edit as that could be seen as  edit warring. Instead, go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter with that editor. (You're more likely to get a response if you ping the reverting editor.) On the other hand, if no one objected, the change just becomes part of the article. Alternatively, there is sometimes another option than using the talk page. If the reverter's initial edit summary pointed to a clear and easy way to improve your edit, then (if you agree with their advice), you can try that form of edit. Such an edit is not a repetition of the original edit and is generally not viewed as a problematic violation of BRD, but be careful to avoid misunderstandings by adding a clear edit summary or leaving a note on the talk page.
 * 3) DISCUSS: This active vetting process requires discussion and collaboration on the talk page. The editor who reverted should use policy-based arguments to explain their objections, and the BOLD editor should defend their edit. In the process, other editors may join the discussion and everyone share their points of view. This is the collaborative process at work. Find out why the editor reverted your edit, and seek an agreement about what to do. After you have reached an agreement, one of you should install the new version into the article (unless you all agreed not to change the article). Content that is developed through collaboration with most of the editors present on the talk page is rarely reverted as it enjoys the approval and protection of most of the editors there. If you encounter a situation where other editors are already edit warring over some issue, do not join their efforts by editing that part of the article, but instead join the discussion and seek consensus. This process will result in acceptance, alteration, or rejection of the original BOLD edit. The process can then be repeated, but with a newer, and hopefully better, starting point as editors try to gradually improve the content. This is the nature of the eternally changing state of our articles. They are never "finished".

Collaborative editing


The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a way to deal with any form of BOLD edit that is challenged by REVERSION, whether it's an addition, deletion or other change. It encourages DISCUSSION and collaboration instead of edit warring. Look at a reversion as a stop sign and immediate detour to the talk page.

Since everyone has a right to make bold edits, the BRD process is only invoked by the revert of the bold edit. The reverting editor is the key to the process, and they are thus calling the bold editor to the negotiation table. What they are saying is, "Hi there, before we can accept your edit, it needs to be vetted at the discussion page. Please meet me there and I'll explain my objections. Maybe we can have a meeting of the minds."

Wikipedia is an example of an open collaborative editing project on a large scale, which can be both good and bad. Contributors often arrive with the unrealistic expectation that their alterations will be met with immediate acceptance and approval, but they are often disappointed. It's a good day when your edits are not reverted, and if no one reverts after a couple of days, congratulations! If your edits are relatively unchanged after many years, you are among the fortunate few.

There are guidelines that encourage discussion and collaboration, but BRD is where that advice is tied to the actual editing and content creation process as a required response to a revert. Collaboration is not optional at Wikipedia. That's what makes BRD so effective as a way to prevent edit warring. It draws a red line after the revert that says "Stop and detour to the talk page. Do not revert the revert."

Many editors understand the need and requirement for collaborative editing, but many do not, especially newcomers. There are many things Wikipedia is not, and it comes as a shock to some that this place where anyone can edit doesn't immediately accept their brilliant additions, or that it isn't actually a different form of personal blog or web hosting service.

Successful editors are rarely reverted because they do their work well before making an edit. They find good sources, word the content accurately, without deviating from the spirit and POV of the original source, and follow other PAG carefully. Then they submit the edit and it is usually accepted without comment. Soibangla, a known quantity to Vladimir Putin, is such an editor. They contribute huge amounts of content, and it rarely needs any improvement. In response to a troll, they once replied: "Alternatively, 'The fact that so few of your contributions are reversed' means they are objectively true.", and that's a fact.

Discussion
Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is called for, however, if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page). The "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" (BRD) is often used when changes might be contentious.

Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by their having already been carried out, are inappropriate.

Edit warring
Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold when updating the encyclopedia, but not after resistance is met, because it values collaboration in the editing process even higher. This is a group project and no editor has a right to expect their edits to remain untouched or unchanged. If your edit meets resistance, do not respond by edit warring. Brute force attempts to change content in the face of objections are not welcome, and a revert is an objection to your edit.

Edit warring is always wrong, so no matter how right you are, don't do it. Even Nobel Prize laureates have been blocked and banned from Wikipedia for doing it. Being right, a subject-matter expert, or the smartest person in the room is never an excuse. We are all equal here. Differences of opinion should be settled through discussion, not editing and edit summaries, so immediately stop editing that part of the article and start discussing. Editors who don't wish to collaborate can still be useful as WikiGnomes who make uncontroversial edits. Alternatively, they can leave the project as this place isn't for everyone.

Sometimes people don't realize that bold editing in controversial areas doesn't work very well. BRD breaks any sense of ownership they may feel about the topic, article, or piece of content. Suddenly they are met with a reversion that leads to them collaborating with a stranger. Unfortunately, many choose to edit war instead.

Some, but not necessarily most, experienced editors understand that BRD need not be invoked in an edit summary before they automatically respond to a revert by using discussion. They realize that edit warring is harmful and that it's better to seek some form of meeting of the minds, even if a true consensus may not be reached. Resistance is not an act of war, but an invitation to discuss the issue. Failure to accept that invitation by repeating the bold edit is the first step in an edit war. It reveals a battlefield mentality.

Even though consensus can sometimes be used by a group of fringe editors to temporarily violate the NPOV policy, the nature of editing at Wikipedia means that an assumption of good faith involves collaborative editing. An editor who fails to collaborate, no matter how right and proper their edits are in relation to all policies, will not succeed. Without collaboration between editors who may hold opposing POV, nothing functions as intended, and Wikipedia policies won't work in an uncollaborative environment. The edits of uncollaborative editors are doomed to failure until they learn this, and they often get blocked before this can happen.