Assassin's Creed Wiki
Assassin's Creed Wiki

The Assassin's Creed Wiki community encourages users to be bold when editing the encyclopedia.

Although new users may feel ever anxious of being scolded for their honest mistakes or of their edits being ruthlessly reverted by veteran editors, wikis develop faster when editors take the initiative to correct errors and contribute. The fundamental premise behind a wiki is that anyone can edit, and it simply won't be efficient if a user has to ask for permission at every turn to make changes to articles. So don't worry, Assassin's Creed Wiki not only allows you to edit, revise, and create articles, it wants you to do it. The very nature of a wiki is as a collaborative project between everyone from all diverse backgrounds.

Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia.

If you are unsure if your edit might go against a site policy, consult the Manual of Style. If it does not, look to precedents in articles, but be aware that not all precedents are necessarily correct, and may even reflect outdated formatting styles.

If you are confronted with inactivity such that your concerns about an article or even a sweeping proposal is not being addressed, the guideline is to wait at most two weeks for the former or one month for the latter, and if still no response is forthcoming by then, you have the free rein to act based on what you believe is best.

Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted. Of course, this guideline of boldness also permits others to be bold and edit your edits as well. Just as you should not be too worried about hurting others' feelings when correcting an inferior article, so too you should not take it personally if your edits are revised or even undone for being erroneous or in violation of a guideline. As long as your intentions were well meaning, you should not be discouraged! It is all part of the learning experience.

...but don't be impulsive...[]

On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes there are users who get carried away by the open nature of wikis and dive right in with impunity and without regard for the Manual of Style. Asking users to be confident and take initiative is not to ask them to be inconsiderate or reckless, and this wiki is not an anarchic playground either.

Echoing the above that your edits can themselves be undone, permission to be bold does not necessarily mean every edit you make will be flawless, and it is also essential that articles you modify are consistent in formatting with other pages, are written with proper grammar and syntax, and adhere to the Manual of Style. In other words, being bold is not a license to be disruptive or frivolously indulgent.

Reasonable caution should be exercised when editing certain large articles with extensive histories on complex, perhaps even controversial, subjects, such as Assassins and Templars where you should consult the talk page first to see if the changes you wish to make have already been discussed by the community in the past.

Moreover, if you are aware that your edit may dramatically alter established formatting norms which will affect articles across the wiki, it would also be best to consult with other users and staff regarding such changes as it may constitute a proposed reform to current policies.

There are two specific scenarios where we offer guidelines on how boldness may manifest in your editing with moderation: one in regards to reversions and the other in regards to inactive users.

When applied to reversions[]

If there is an edit that you entirely disagree with, that is not officially backed by the Manual of Style, that you see no hope in revising, and you wish to outright undo:

  1. Revert it first with an edit summary of your reasoning. The edit summary can be a substitute for asking for permission in a talk page.
  2. If the other party still refutes it upon your reasoning, they may revert it in turn with their own edit summary explaining their reasoning.
  3. Once this round of reverts has occurred, unless you can provide an immediate compromise in the form of another edit or you accept the other party's reasoning, you must then take the dispute to either the page's talk page or the user's talk page rather than continuing what would then amount to an edit war.

The first two reverts illustrate the efficiency of boldness in that had you taken the time to discuss it with the other party initially, should they accept your reasoning, this would have rendered such time spent on discussion unnecessary. By reverting first while providing an edit summary, you are essentially communicating your disagreement and taking harmless action—harmless because it could just be undone in turn if found in error—simultaneously, potentially saving a step.

When following this procedure, you should be conscious that your reversion is being committed with an intent for efficiency, not out of an impulsive reaction to an edit you did not like.

Although seeing one's edit reverted can always feel alarming, one must never take offense or interpret it as a personal attack. As much as it is possible, assume good faith—that editors in opposition are only doing what they honestly think is best for the wiki. At the same time, your edit summary should never personally attack another user in turn. Being bold does not mean being rude or uncivil, which will be further elaborated on further below.

Nonetheless, note that it is not wrong to take the dispute to a discussion immediately rather than reverting as a first step if you have cause to believe that this would be more productive to communications or that the edit dispute is controversial enough to warrant an immediate discussion. This may be the case for major changes that could alter established convention and policies of the wiki.

When confronted with inactivity[]

Sometimes, in spite of raising a pressing issue with an article on its talk page, you may unfortunately find after more than a week that, for whatever reason, no one is responding. This wiki, like any community or organization changes over time, and people come and go. At times, even the most senior of editors may go on a hiatus or even disappear indefinitely, having moved on to other ventures. Editors are normal people with other, almost always more vital, life commitments, and so may not always be present to address your concerns or may one day merely decide that they no longer have the passion or interest. This is a fact of life.

If you are faced with an issue with an article or a change you wish to propose, but you have been failing to receive a proper response from other, especially more senior, editors addressing your advice, this is the perfect time to be bold and take initiative!

The general guideline is to wait a period of one to two weeks for an article, depending on the magnitude of the change, and one month for a major guideline for your proposal or concerns to be addressed. If you are still faced with silence by then, provided that you do not contradict the Manual of Style, you have free rein to act based on what you believe is best for the article and the wiki.

The wiki is the providence of no single individual, and authority is derived on a meritocratic basis. Should you not receive any response to your inquiries, especially any objections to your suggestions, then it might indicate that virtually no one else is active anymore. In such a scenario, regardless of who the administrators are, you might be one of the few voices left in the wiki, and if you did not act then, nothing might ever be done, and the wiki will stagnate and cease to grow.

Hence, if it happens that you are an entirely new user who is confronted with an inactive staff, authority and responsibilities may devolve to you, and you must rise to the occasion and cannot be faulted for changes you undertake in the absence of participation from more senior editors.

...and don't be rude![]

Boldness can often be conflated with bluntness and bluntness, again, as a license to be disruptive. Being bold and assertive does not mean to be aggressive, and whenever taking the initiative to correct edits and acting on what you believe is best, you must never forget to exercise courtesy, respect, and civility to your fellow editors.

Even when alarmed by a sudden spree of incorrect edits, maintain your composure, be bold—even merciless—in fixing them, but do not insult the other user who may simply be an inexperienced user new to the formatting rules of the wiki. Taking initiative is a matter of action—acting for the greater good of the wiki—and it is also a matter of communication—not being too shy or timid to open debate with another user—but boldness is not a mandate for how the communication should proceed.

Remember that there are varying degrees of assertiveness by which you may communicate that an edit is in error or your perspective regarding a change. You and other editors should not mistake a firm and stern, yet still professional, tone to necessarily be one of hostility, anger, or condescension. At the same time, your eagerness to push forward for the wiki should not manifest in undue harshness and scathing attacks. It is entirely possible to be assertive while remaining polite.

Defensible position[]

Being bold is generally a defensible position, for even if you acted in error, as long as you have the capacity for debate, can demonstrate that you acted only based on what you thought was best, did not violate the Manual of Style, and took initiative for the sake of efficiency in the wiki, you should not be faulted for making a mistake.