At its core, the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle isn't just a polite way to edit; it's Wikipedia's natural mechanism for figuring out what the community really agrees on, especially when things get tricky. Think of it as a practical method, almost like the scientific method, for testing ideas about article improvement against the community's hidden consensus.
When you make a significant edit, you're not just changing the page (the Formal Consensus). You're acting on a hypothesis – your best guess (your Consensus Hypothesis) that this change aligns better with what the community truly believes or would accept (the Shadow Consensus). Your edit is essentially an experiment: "I believe this version is better; let's see if the community agrees." You make your private hypothesis public and testable by changing the visible page.
A revert is direct, unambiguous feedback: your experiment, according to at least one other person (let's call them Editor B), failed. Editor B, acting on their own hypothesis about the consensus, sees your change as incorrect or harmful and restores the previous state. The critical outcome here isn't just the rejection; it's that the revert makes a hidden disagreement visible and, crucially, identifies an actor (Editor B) who cares enough to act. We can call Editor B the Most Interested Person (MIP) for this specific point of conflict.
A side note: Reverts done just to block progress, like "get consensus first" without actually disagreeing with the content, break this process – they're noise, not real feedback.
The revert immediately triggers the need for discussion. This isn't just general chat; it's a focused negotiation specifically with the MIP (Editor B) who signaled the conflict. The goal here is critical: not just to talk endlessly, but to understand why your hypotheses differ and to work towards a concrete, agreed-upon next step – ideally, a new edit proposal (B₂). The gold standard outcome for this discussion is when the original reverter (MIP B) agrees to make, or approves of you making, this revised edit (B₂). This signifies that the specific disagreement between you and Editor B has been resolved, at least provisionally.
This is where the "ratchet" feeling comes in. Successfully completing a D₁ → B₂ cycle doesn't mean you've reached final consensus. It means you've resolved the conflict with Editor B regarding the specific issue raised by B₁. The new edit, B₂, is itself another hypothesis test. If another editor (Editor C) disagrees with B₂, they will revert (R₂), becoming the new MIP. This triggers a new discussion (D₂) focused on their specific objection.
Each time a disagreement is successfully navigated through discussion and results in an agreed-upon edit, it's like a ratchet clicking forward. The consensus on the page becomes incrementally stronger because that specific objection, raised by that specific person, has been addressed. It makes it harder to revert back to the original state without bringing entirely new arguments or actors into play.
While any single discussion can stall, the process itself, when followed persistently (even if by different editors over time), tends to drive relentlessly towards clarification. It systematically surfaces points of friction (via reverts) and demands they be addressed (via discussion). It forces engagement. It doesn't guarantee everyone will be happy, nor does it guarantee the originally intended outcome. But it inexorably pushes the system towards revealing and resolving disagreements one by one, until a version of the page is reached that no active MIP strongly objects to. It compels the Shadow Consensus, however messy, to grapple with the Formal Consensus until some form of stable (even if temporary) alignment is found.