(English) This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikimedians but may not have wide support. This is not policy on Meta, but it may be a policy or guideline on other Wikimedia projects. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes.
Bold, revert, discuss is the predominant method of editing on wikis that do not use tools such as FlaggedRevs. A user makes a bold edit; another user reverts it; and then they discuss, rather than edit warring. When FlaggedRevs is in place, a user makes an edit, a higher-ranking user refuses to approve the edit, and then discussion commences.
The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. It can sometimes be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient.
Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are. When in doubt, edit! Similarly, if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article—either is a good outcome.
Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see).
Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the w:en:status quo ante), but don't engage in back-and-forth reverts because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring.
Cycle. When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion.
The plots below describe two analyses that support [the suspicion that algorithmic tools was exacerbating the effect of rejection on retention]. Desirable newcomer reverts by tools shows that desirable newcomers are increasingly likely to have their work rejected by an algorithmic quality control tool and that the growth in the use of these tools to reject newcomer work coincides with the beginning of the decline (early 2007). BRD reciprocation rate shows something a little more nuanced[2]. We hypothesized that there would be a behavioral pattern explaining why reverts by algorithmic tools affect newcomers more strongly. Wikipedia's Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle (BRD) recommends a process by which editors may efficiently do work and resolve conflicts. As the figure shows, editors who revert using Huggle are much less likely to participate in a BRD discussion (~7%) than editors who revert manually (~60%).
Automated reverts of desirable newcomers. The proportion of reverted newcomers who were reverted by tools is plotted over time.
BRD reciprocation rate. The rate at which reverting editors respond to en:WP:BRD initiations is plotted over time by the tool used to perform the revert.
