It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
Here are my observations of different underlying philosophies of
Wikipedia which may underlie conflicts. People with different views on
these spectrums may be stuck in a conflict which is actually a
meta-conflict.
Please feel free to add comments or content to the bottom of this page, but please do not apply edits before the section
#Contributed material.
Edit wars poison the page history, flood recent changes, and disrupt other editors.
A responsible user should walk away from a persistent reverter. Let others handle it.
Not considered harmful
Edit wars are part of the editorial process.
The damage from a war now and then is minimal and greatly overstated.
Repeatedly reverting a damaging edit is wholly appropriate.
Adminship
Who should become an admin. To be completed.
Contributed material Information
Material appearing after this section should not be construed as being endorsed by
VeryVerily.
Communityism vs. encylopedianism
Communityism
Wikipedia should be made a welcoming place for newcomers who wish to participate.
Actions which might be seen as rude and disrespectful to others should be avoided, even if avoiding them temporarily negatively affects the content.
Personal attacks should not be tolerated.
All articles should reflect the consensus point of view of the community.
No, I don't think this fits the communityism philosophy which is accepting and open to other view points rather than imposing the consensus will on minorities. Community is finding a way to live together, not about homgeneity.--
Silverback 07:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) -- hmmm, sometimes logins don't stick and I have to put in username by hand.
Fair enough. It's hard for us to figure out what the actual viewpoints of all these
factions are; we are probably best to back off and let communityists themselves define their views. Most of these distinctions are just straw men right now.
Encyclopedism
The sole purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia; social interaction is a byproduct which should not compromise this goal.
Treating people respectfully and being nice to newbies is desirable inasmuch as it encourages contributions and diversity of opinions, and avoids
groupthink.
Personal attacks are no big deal. Indeed, it is hard to say they're bad at all if it makes an editor who is wrong back off.
There is no such thing as a "Wikipedia community". A community is a group of people sharing
bodily risk, and
social club concerns or annoyances are very petty compared to real-world political problems.
Sysopism vs. Rehabilism vs. Politicism
Sketchy
Sysopism
Trolls and other problem users and should be banned and done with.
A former troll has a lot to prove if they want to ever be allowed to contribute again.
The cost of fighting a troll is higher than fixing whatever trouble they cause.
Politicism
"Troll" and "problem user" are
factionally defined terms at best. One person's valuable editor is another one's POV-pusher.
As Wikipedia becomes more and more influential, we can expect constantly renewing political disputes: this simply can't be avoided. Excluding contributors for political reasons would undermine Wikipedia's claim to neutrality.
Engage users in conflict by using the
political virtues, and assess behaviour by these standards. Try to find "
troll bridges" where opposing factions can work together. Be
troll-friendly.
Cultivating the habit of always writing from a
NPOV in all wikipedia editing is a skill that is not difficult to acquire.
NPOV editing does not ever substantially conflict with other editing goals, and should never be compromised.
Provided all the relevant facts are available, it is not difficult to tell if writing is POV.
Elusive virtue
Composing NPOV text on contentious texts can be deeply difficult, requiring introspection and testing one's honesty with oneself.
Writing from a NPOV stance can conflict fundamentally with comprehensiveness, conciseness and freshness of writing, and, though of great value, sometimes it is best sacrificed to promote other editing good.
Facts can only be grasped from a POV; everyone has blindspots with respect to their own prejudices.
Unattainable absolute
A neutral point of view requires omniscience and omnipresence. No-one has that.
The comprehensive whole of all Wikipedia can be said to approach a neutral point of view as it becomes more comprehensive and includes more factual information. A single entry can only be said to have a neutral point of view assuming the limitations of the subject (which is not a neutral act).
"NPOV" as used on Wikipedia does not mean "neutral point of view". It's shorthand for a particular style of writing which avoids authoritative statements and is highly contextual, particularly temporally. "NPOV" writing often ages poorly.