Wikiversity talk:Be bold
From Wikiversity
Contents |
Is there a bit of a dissagreement between the "be bold" statement and the "but don't modify this page unless you know you're right" statement attached?
I'm actually thinking it's kind of good that way -- but I'm wondering what people think on this, if people have 'thinked' on this :) Unnr
- It really comes down to doing whatever you can to improve the page you're editing. And don't be afraid to make big improvements. The nice thing about wikis is that if someone doesn't think you're improvement was an improvement, it can always be modified again. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the biggest problem can be when people start getting bold in areas that consensus needs to be developed before being bold. For example, if someone created an entirely new policy and stated it as official policy. This could be Wikiversity-wide, or limited to individual Schools or Departments, but otherwise I think we should encourage people to be less bold when it comes to anything not in the name Mainspace. That means, be somewhat less bold when editing Topic:, Portal:, User:, and Wikiversity: pages. In these cases, it might be better to talk before being bold. The Jade Knight 06:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the phrase "add a new perspective" helps the goal to keep edits unbiased and impersonal. Thoughts? -Linelor
- I'm not sure we need to construct a division between
1) staying open to editors who "add a new perspective" to wiki pages and
2) trying to be unbiased.
It just takes a bit of effort to stay open to multiple perspectives and judge them on their merits. Also, in some learning activities it is constructive to adopt a single or a biased perspective. Some teachers have at times told students to adopt a bias and then as an exercise the class explores the implications of doing so. At the end of the exercise, the teacher reveals what was going on and the class is in position to recognize the dangers of uncritically adopting a single point of view. In other cases, learners might explore a "personal" point of view that is unpopular and condemned by authorities....and eventually that "personal" point of view might become widely recognized as being better than previous conventional points of view.--JWSchmidt 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- "don't modify this page unless you know you're right" - This is unreasonable; in science, we can never know for sure that we are right. "Just make sure that you know what you are doing" is more sensible.
- Some "major changes" are harder to revert than others: one big change to a page is easy to revert; small changes to dozens or even hundreds of pages takes time (or machine) to revert.
- The flip side of "be bold" is: don't be surprised or upset if you make a structural change or one that affects others and it is reverted. Hillgentleman|Talk 01:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Bold SHARUL
In a bold move, SHARUL added the following passage to the Official Policy on Being Bold...
| “ | el:Βικιεπιστήμιο:Έχετε θάρρος
SHARUL 14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)my name is SHARUL.it would better if learners are allowed to become active members of this prestigious instituition through membership.i therefore entreat all and sundry to come on board and make this a great success to project us forward. |
” |
Here is the English translation of the Greek page, el:Βικιεπιστήμιο:Έχετε θάρρος ...
| “ | Vikiepistimio: Have courage
From Vikiepistimio Be bold! The community Vikiepistimiou considers it necessary by users not to hesitate in processing pages. The wiki expand faster when many correct problems, correct grammatical errors, add elements, ensure the accuracy of grafomenon etc. Everyone must be bold and this is what we all expect. How many times you read something and skeftikate "because it is not corrected these pages?" Vikiepistimio not merely allows but asks you to add, to correct and edit the page himself. We need some courtesy, but it works. We will see. If someone wrote a poor-quality text, a text of a sentence, or simply something meaningless, do not worry about feelings. Correct, you add to it, and if it is a waste of time, replace it with a good text. This is the essence of a wiki. And of course, other users with courage and ruthlessly will draw what you wrote. Do not take it personally. And they, like all of us, simply want to do Vikiepistimio as best as possible. |
” |
Moulton 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A different way of looking at being bold
I think there could be the comparison that being bold is like vandalizing WV except you don't get blocked. I think getting blocked is what happens to vandals. But, in the sense that vandalism can be fixed. So if vandalism can be fixed then there is really no way you can break WV by editing it normally. I think if this was pointed out then be bold could be a little more effective. I think a reason people are not bold is just the simple fear that their change will be criticized or they will make a "mistake" and look like a fool. --Devourer09 00:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] being bold works even better with...
- ... a good edit summary, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- ... a little discussion - if your change would affect the way other people uses wikiversity. Hillgentleman|Talk 01:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
