Wikipedia:Bold-refine

The Bold-Refine process is the ideal collaborative editing cycle, which seeks WP:Consensus § Through editing by continuously improving multiple drafts, each with an informative edit summary containing dialectical responses, as applicable, to challenges or errors pointed out by editors. When reverting, an editor should be especially careful to include such edit summaries, and before reverting an edit, an editor should consider its potential benefit. In this process, editors may obvert reversions, using the edit summary field to meet the requirement of discussion, instead of or prior to discussing on the talk page. Editors should supplement their arguments with multiple drafts of wikitext itself, progressively refined in response to competent editorial input.

This process is also called Bold-Refine-Deliver, because the emphasis is on the final goal of delivering a continuously-improving WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA to the readers, while refining ourselves as scholars and learners who read and consider what other editors write. Every editor should be a reader-student – someone who enjoys learning – first, and a researcher-writer – someone who is willing to teach what they know – second.

How to refine: Do the research

In response to a WP:Bold contribution that may be incomplete, poorly worded, or unreferenced, consider how you can preserve the good content and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Try to refine the bold edit by copyediting, finding references, or adding material.

If someone contributes a plausible but uncited claim, do the research! In the age of online information, you should take at least 20 seconds to do a web search before reverting. If the claim is justifiable, but you are too busy to afford the ~2 minutes necessary to justify it with a citation, then simply add a {{citation needed}} template. Or ask the question {{who?}}, or {{where?}}. Give the contributor time to justify the claim, at least a couple hours, and maybe even a couple days or weeks. Readers in the meantime will know that the claim is {{dubious}}, and if you ask, maybe one of them will {{clarify}}. If you are unable or unwilling to refine an imperfect but constructive contribution, consider doing nothing. Maybe someone else will do the research. In any case, the encyclopedia will survive without you.

Dialectical refinement

If during this process, you intend to remove substantive assertions that amount to a change in meaning, it is better to use a Partial reversion, so as to notify the original contributor. Retain the part of the contribution that is acceptable, while giving an adequate edit summary: State the what is being removed and why, in order to meet your requirement for discussion in the edit summary, and invite the contributor to either refine and improve his contribution, or else re-submit it as-is, with a rebuttal in the edit summary that justifies his original assertion.

Explain why you are reverting

WP:Revert only when necessary, and if you do, you must explain why. If partial revert or refinement isn't possible, and if you must do a complete revert, state the reason in the edit summary, so that the contributor can respond to your objections while making a case in discussion, as per WP:BRD. The reversion must itself be a form of "discussion", else it is mere wp:status quo stonewalling. Refusal to address the substantive content question in a revert summary, is tendentious laziness, which is sufficient grounds for obversion, as it increases friction, discourages newcomers, and reduces the overall quality of the encyclopedia and pleasure of editing it. WP:DRWNE: Don't revert with no explanation.

How to obvert

As a type of reversion, the same principles, guidelines, and warnings apply to obversion: do it only when necessary. If another competent editor has made a partial reversion, it is better to submit a second draft as a new contribution rather than as an obversion. That way, both editors will be working together in a productive way.

In response to a competent reversion, in which the editor has given a sufficient reason in the edit summary, you must modify your contribution and submit a second draft. In the edit summary, respond to the editor's reason for the revert, so that adequate discussion and coordination can take place.

In response to a dubious reversion in which the editor has given an insufficient reason, you may obvert, but you must answer the editor's objection in the edit summary, by stating why you hold it to be insufficient. Use the opportunity to refine your own contribution, if possible, and boldly submit a second draft.

Either way, you must give justification in the edit summary: you must answer by explaining why you are obverting, even if the reverter has failed to do so. This demonstrates a good-faith effort to engage in a dialectic process. It will also help to set an example for other editors in consensus-building, and will protect you later from charges of edit-warring.

Examples of editing processes

These outlines assume that justification is given for every reversion and obversion in edit summaries. Otherwise, these may be considered belligerent operations.

type of edit cycle	assessment (does this deliver?)	notes
bold	Presumed good
bold-discuss	Good	uncommon
bold-discuss-revert	Good	Uncommon. The vandal fighters ought to be required to do this with newbies.
bold-refine-refine...	Best
bold-revert-discuss	Not bad, but not always good. Good when it results in consensus and someone is able to deliver.	This is how we often bite the newcomers (please don't), and sometimes get paralysed in discussion.
bold-revert-obvert	Good, if done appropriately.	If you are unsure whether to obvert, it is best to go with one of the other options.
bold-revert-obvert-refine	Better
bold-revert-obvert-refine-discuss	Acceptable	Advanced discussion
bold-revert-obvert-revert-obvert-[refine/discuss]	Acceptable	Advanced discussion

Beyond this is edit warring, which is not okay.

See also

• Editing policy
• WP:BRB, other options for good faith dispute resolution