Proposal talk:A "be bold" campaign

From Strategic Planning

Promote a Be-Bold motto

I like this idea. As a new user myself, I still have hesitation I'm trying to overcome regarding making improvements to pages, however, perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone? Lets create a viral campaign, advertising Wikipedia with the 'Be Bold' motto. Of course, we should use 'free' methods, such as, say, a series of Youtube or Videobay videos, as I don't think we should be squandering donation money on purchasing ad-space.

While I realize that Wikipedia is a household name now, it can't hurt to just remind everyone that we're here and, more importantly, we like it when people contribute. 8bit 08:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

its not about being bold, its about trying to get rid of the egotistical editors who control articles as if they were their own.

I like the idea of YouTube videos. I think a "Be Bold" video would be a good thing. And a short message with a link to the BOLD page could be put at the top of every Wikipedia page for, say, a month. Perhaps an overlay with BE BOLD could be placed on the Wikipedia jigsaw globe graphic for the time that the campaign runs. --Bodnotbod 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a youtube video that shows you how to correct a mistake is a great idea! and the be bold slogon woudnt cost anything and we could see how the quality and number of new edits increases / decreases and can then keep the campaign going / abondon it. Great idea! --Hannes Röst 12:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of "be bold" as a campaign, however this proposal needs to be developed a lot. The page is currently very messy. John Vandenberg 06:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fear more people seeing "Be Bold" will just increase the disputes, such as the massive arguments, edit-wars and ANI topic-ban power-games in English Wikipedia. The impact would be like adding fuel to a fire: the specific impact depends on whose house was sprayed with more fuel. -Wikid77 09:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go off the beaten track

Being bold is great. But the problem comes when a new editor arrives on an established page, for example Guinea pig and decides to add their paragraph which is completely removed [1]. Why would they bother to contribute again? New users should be encouraged to boldly go off the beaten track to pages that need some attention [2] or even better [3]. Give them a template to fill in, an editor to ask help from and a pointer to where and how to find more information and get them to fill in the blanks. We should encourage them to be bold by going off and finding out new things about subjects they may not know much about rather than re-write an established page. --Alchemist Jack 15:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you say are serious problems. For example, on German Wikipedia a newcommer can ask for a "mentor" to help him/her start contributing. I think a mentor program on English Wikipedia would be great.--Kozuch 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have Adopt-a-User on English Wikipedia, but I'm sure it could be improved and/or advertised more prominently. -Peteforsyth 17:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with letting a "well-established" page go through some churn? Maybe it seems to you that the changes are counter-productive, but perhaps the person who made the change can see something you do not. Sometimes even a change that immediately makes a page worse has a long-term positive effect because the page becomes even better-organized when it is fixed again. I do not think it is good for any page to become static, even a well-established page. I think the problem is people who think a well-established page should remain static.--Headlessplatter 22:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm w/Kozuk on this one for the most part. Somehow incorporate mentors. Add cell phone #'s to a user's page to permit quick clarification & efficient & thorough communication as well? I'd be up for that. However, for beginners, I am under the impressoin that templates are not easy to use, as they are just learning wiki in the first place. Perhaps an area where they can grab an e-mail addy & then fire off an e-mail w/contact info for a mentor to address? --Adam

Alchemist Jack seems to be right ,after reading this proposal I decided to give a try At Marathi Language wikipedia by using a special template which meant be bold in language Marathi ( instead of a regular template,called 'fasthelp', that we used for first time anonymous users).I do not have any handy feed back from any of those anon users but some where I hvae a feeling that normal message was more effective in getting them registered than that of bebold template message , So I am in two minds whether to go ahead with be bold campaign , may be I am going some where wrong , may be some one suggest me more proper sentense for a be bold campaign Mahitgar 15:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be bold

Being bold got me community banned on the english Wikipedia by others being bold. The main page says the purpose of Wikipedia is "anybody can edit." Then, Wikipedia:Introduction says "Be bold" and "Go ahead and edit." These basic mission statements add up to "Wikipedia is a fake encyclopedia for you to edit," because it does not seem possible that a serious encyclopedia would allow the public to edit, since much of the public can't write or edit any good. Some in the public are very imature. After I started "improving" the Christianity article, insulting messages began to be placed on my talk page by "bold" Wikipedians, some of whom were somehow administrators. Some of them seemed to consider Wikipedia to be a serious encyclopedia rather than a recreational editing site, and some of them seemed to be looking for an excuse to pick on people. I'm not sure of the history of "Be bold" but I notice html for bold is the letter "b." I found I was less hounded against editing when I started an article than I was for editing someone else's writing. So, possibly the way to edit is to write a college-level term paper that would get an "A" and then donate it using a minimum of edits. What good is the history of the page if you can't (which is a contraction meaning "can not") find the history of the article? I think the slogan is a major cause of disruption of articles and of vandalism as well. Maybe there should be a "Be responsible" campaign in conjunction with a "Be civil" campaign. Nobody told me to donate a great term paper. The directions said "Be bold" and "edit" so I feel sort of betrayed. --Chuck Marean 05:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are going to edit a page on a topic as controversial as Christianity you need to be extremely circumspect (not to mention extremely well-read); otherwise you are just asking for trouble. - Brya 05:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be Cooperative or Be Considerate

I must agree with "Don't Be Bold" before people learn the ropes, such as with English Wikipedia, or German Wikipedia. Perhaps "Be Cooperative" or "Be Considerate" would be, let's say, a MILLION times more valuable. Why? ...because it is good for people to be cautious, take time to learn the general rules, meet a few other editors early, and not "Be Boldly Self-righteous" because they were goaded into changing everything before they knew the basics, in each area (which differ). I think, by human nature, there are enough bold people in any massive group, and they need to "Be Cooperative" to learn to compromise for real consensus, not Boldy Bully other users. Instead of a Be-Bold campaign, just keep promoting quick introductions to the Wikipedia or Wikimedia basics. -Wikid77 09:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take into consideration though, that if you're a new user, you're going to learn ten times faster by editing and collaborating with other people right from the get go. Now, I'm not saying they go out and make major changes to major articles, but even a small amount of experience is required in order for a new user, or any user for that matter, to go up in the ranks and edit greater things. And that experience is simply obtained faster and easier by being bold and editing. Jherbertz 14:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Rules put off new users

I've created a few pages, which I admit weren't very good. One user in particular pointed out that they were poor - fair enough - but Wikipedia's policies meant they got deleted - I didn't get much chance to improve them as they were gone.

I now feel very retisent to spend more time writing articles that are going to be deleted. As part of this campaign, you need to be more forgiving to users. I appreciate that you don't want Wikipedia littered with poor articles - but it is anyway because there simply aren't enough moderators to deal with these things, resulting in short sharp action which can really take the wind out of people's sails!

Wikipedia has a lot of good tags to encourage improvement - and I fully support these measures. Instead of deleting things, which not create another state where a user - especially a new inexperienced user - can build up a page. Give users a more experienced "buddy" who can shepherd them in the right direction!

It's a complaint I see in quite a few places. I also like the way that moderators look at experience before deleting things - poorly experienced users are strongly prejudised against. 20:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold is good, but...

How can you expect people to be bold with semi-protect and pending changes / flagged revisions / whatever you call it in the way? Surely this is likely to hinder editors wishing to take up the offer of this campaign, to "be bold"... There's no point in being bold if you realise that there is some stuff you aren't gonna be able to edit without going through the motions of setting up an account and / or waiting for someone to confirm that what you've posted is ok and fits in with the article. Can we really support a campaign like this without reducing barriers to editing? One doesn't seem to fit with the other, in my opinion. BarkingFish 23:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with what you wrote. The "be bold" campaign seems to be in direct conflict with the other policies you mentioned. Wikipedia shouldn't send mixed messages like this because it will only confuse and frustrate new users and they are less likely to try editing in the future based on their experience.-Chinless Fish 01:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the reality for many users has been "Be Bold and be sorry" where they imagined that a busy article could be edited by changing contentious parts of the article. Back in 2006, I inserted text: "Hurricane Katrina travelled up the entire U.S. state of Mississippi" and added 22 other major edits explaining the real impacts. I was informed to "focus on New Orleans" because "no one cares about the entire state of Mississippi" and I boldly thought to reject such stupidity, and soon got edit-blocked for 27 hours. Be Afraid of other users, and act cautiously. -Wikid77 10:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is unnaceptable, and it is ridiculous to say that no-one cares about Mississippi. However, I don't think it's appropriate to say that everyone should be "afraid of other users". For the most part Wikipedians have common sense, although some people, for example the user you encountered, unfortunatley do not. WaCkYwAcE MeSsAgE mE 18:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that protected pages are a barrier to being bold, but unfortunatley some people don't understand what Wikipedia is about and choose to vandalise it and thus ruin it for the majority. Whilst, yes, there are people who revert such edits, but without simi-protected pages, Wikipedia would soon become a playground for people with nothing better to do, and would soon descend into chaos. Essentially, what I'm saying is that yes, people should be bold, but only if they are familiar with editing Wikipedia - which they should have become after four days before being autoconfirmed. Being bold is one thing, being recklessly bold is quite another. WaCkYwAcE MeSsAgE mE 15:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is NOT just the vandalism, but rather, bold users who try to edit-out (not revert) vandalism, and their botched fixes to articles are worse than the original vandalism. English article "Mobile phone" lost 7 major sections (for 22 days?) when someone tried to remove vandalism. Some busy articles must be semi-protected because fixing hacked-text is too hard for general users, during a flurry of other edits. Perhaps 90% of all enwiki vandalism comes from IP edits. -Wikid77 10:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I am a supporter of being forced to have user account if someone wishes to edit Wikipedia. However, the problem is that some IPs have valuable contributions that would make a real difference to the quality of articles, but most simply would not be bothered to set up an account. WaCkYwAcE MeSsAgE mE 18:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about a "suggest" link replacing the "edit" link for semi-protected articles? Click the suggest link and the Talk page opens, with the relevant section header automatically prepared, with some friendly exhortation to "boldly" suggest a change. Some I.P. users are already using the Talk page to do this, but that involves too many actions: click "discussion" tab; click "edit this page" (confusing the first-time user); be confronted with possibly large amounts of wikitext; scroll down to somewhere and type something. Better: one click, type something. I suspect that might get more feedback than any campaign. -84user 17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]