Talk:Archive:Bold moves

Proposal?

Should this be made into a proposal? --Larry Sanger 00:32, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

Good idea?

Is this page a good idea? --Larry Sanger 00:42, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

I like the idea of the page, I do not like the "be bold". One should not have to be bold to edit what should be there. Simple as that. I had the experience of working two weeks on one paragraph afterwhich someone came in from Wikipdedia, announced he was going to be bold, and replaced my paragraph with his. As if being being bold made him right. Having said that, having a page where "bold edits" are logged might be a great way to have both. This way "being bold" is meaningful rather than just a trivial circumvention of the process. Having said all this I still do not like "be bold" There must be a better word. For example. writing this letter was "being brave" What does "be bold" mean anyway??? Thomas Mandel

Being bold does not have to preclude being considerate—I think we can definitely be both. The considerate part is something we already do quite well at CZ, but boldness sometimes needs a little bit more encouragement :-) Mark Jones 18:04, 16 March 2008 (CDT)

It's certainly better than the aggressive nature of wikipedia's BOLD; I don't think it needs to be made a proposal--just do it boldly.10:14, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

I agree that most editing on the wiki should not feel "bold" or risky. But, since it does feel that way to a lot of people, the idea is that it helps to encourage them to be bold. Where Wikipedians are sometimes perhaps a little too bold, Citizens are sometimes not bold enough. See Be Bold. --Larry Sanger 10:18, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

Be Proactive

To be bold is competitive, and it implies that there is a reason/need to act boldly. After much thought, isn't "Be proactive" what we want? It is a common term, and a positive one. And it is different from Wikipedia. And it is something that we could expect from everyone...Imagine if "be bold" were taken to the extreme, that one morning everyone decided to be bold. It would be havoc. But if everyone would decide at once to be proactive, it would be wonderfulThomas Mandel 12:53, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

'Proactive' is a neologism, created to be the opposite of 'reactive'. I don't think 'bold' implies competitive. For when you feel you might have gone too far, this page is a good idea. Ro Thorpe 13:44, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

OK, I'll be bold. and will delete every instance of "bold" I find here. The point is that we are supposed to be different from Wikipedia, to start with, why can't we do a good job doing that? I don't like the concept of "be bold" because I found that it is a farce at Wikipedia. And I found that it doesn't work here either. It is not a valid justification for an edit. And an edit that is valid should not have to be done "boldly." And if someone comes here from Wikipedia, he should be encouraged to learn the ropes, to learn how nice it is when we work together, before he decides to buck the system. Because that is what bold means to a Wikipedian - to buck the system. There has to be a better and correct term that we could use, if we need to. To act. To be actual. Thomas Mandel 10:55, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Your comment "it is not a valid justification for an edit .. an edit that is valid should not have to be done 'boldly'" is a very good one. I take your point that we need a better word, in part because of what 'bold' has come to mean on Wikipedia; "proactive" was an attempt in that direction. After some thought, and then consultation of a thesaurus when I couldn't come up with anything, I can't suggest any snappier alternative than "act", though. J. Noel Chiappa 12:49, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Why not adopt a French motto (see below)? It's kinda neutral, with no WP overtones. And when there is a French CZ, they can use the English. Ro Thorpe 13:06, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

How about "Take initiative" --Robert W King 13:10, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Unless anyone else other than Tom sees a problem with "be bold" (as opposed to merely understanding Tom's point), I propose to keep the current one. There is no need to change a motto just because one person dislikes it. My feelings about boldness have not changed since I originally made the original "be bold" Wikipedia page in 2001. As far as I'm concerned, the motto means what I originally meant it to mean, and does not have the negative connotations Tom finds in it. --Larry Sanger 13:25, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Sorry, I badly need to qualify the above remark: that's all I intend to say about this, and I leave it to you (all of you) to decide by consensus, vote, proposal, or what have you. In other words, even though I have taken the time to state my opinion, I want to underscore that it is just my opinion. Please don't wait for my approval to do anything, once good ideas and consensus emerge! --Larry Sanger 13:32, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

I agree with Noel -- there should be another word, but, like him, I can't think of it. I could write a 1000 words about why I think "Be bold" is just *barely* wrong. Not badly wrong, but just enough off-key to not be what we should use. Short of thinking of a better alternative, however, I think it should be continued to be used. Here's an idea that isn't great, but maybe it will jog someone else's creative powers: "If you have an article you want to start, or an edit or addition to make on an existing article—Don't Be Shy, Go For It!"

Just do it

Is seems you are saying "just do it", but that phrase belongs to Nike. David E. Volk 14:33, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

Dare!

In French, this is probably what we would say ("Osez!"). It mainly emphasises the author's courage (or lack thereof). I get the feeling, however, that "Dare" is not right in English, in this context, for some reason. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 01:10, 16 March 2008 (CDT)

Osez = Be bold. 'Dare' is indeed not normal English; however, there was an album of that name by the Human League. Ro Thorpe 18:16, 16 March 2008 (CDT)