 | This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or aWikipedia policy, as it has not beenreviewed by the community. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Collaboration between editors who hold opposing POV is essential to a healthy editing environment and the development of good NPOV content. |
Collaboration is as important as content contributions in a wiki community. While counterintuitive, this is because editors who are consistently disruptive and uncivil,temperamentally incompetent, or who bully orfilibuster others into submitting to their will, will continuously alienate other contributors. Alternatively,Bold-refine is the ideal collaborative editing cycle.
These in turn become a wellspring of resentment and negativity, which worsens the goodwill of the project. New contributors orunregistered users are often pushed into corners throughhostility by disruptive editors who border on bad-faith actions. Thesegroups are protected by users who act asmeatpuppets to each other for hazing and unofficial initiation using loopholes in the policy and guidelines rather than providing the support to which their victims are entitled, or working towards creating a harmonious environment foreveryone.
A disruptive user or an otherwise productive contributor who cannot collaborate is not a productive contributor.
Conflicts happen when the contributors take a personal stance rather than valuing the content or respecting the process. In such conflicts,bear-baiting often happens and those who hadescalated the conflict with support might artificially win when the other side gives up, are alienated from the community, or areblocked. Offenders involved in such power plays and marginalization may receive atopic ban from editing or other sanctions to halt furthercyberbullying. Be conscientious about considering how all sides contributed to the problem though, or such sanctions may seem like ashow trial.
Productive contributors in adispute resolution should always be open towards the consensus and compromise process, act per policies whether in patrolling or countervandalism, and be honest intemplating. They shouldn't deliberately sustain the conflict to get their way (e.g. by continuouslymoving the goalposts). They shouldn't try torope in others editors or a newcomer to escalate the problem. Wikipedia should not be used toblow off steam.
In a collaborative environment like a wiki, contributors who are unable or unwilling to collaborate with others should be politely but firmly exclude from the portions where conflict occurs. If disruption continues after educating the user on how Wikipedia works, such users are handled through aversion practices. There are two types of aversion methods used to deal with non-collaborative editors.
Negative reinforcement occurs when the editor in question repeatedly proves to be a disruptive influence by not heeding advice or recommendations; their behavior is then met with negative sanctions like warnings and block. The blocking administrator can extend the interval for the next block appeal from review of the nature of the problem. If the administrator feels the editor requires some time before they can be a productive editor in Wikipedia, they should post information on the specific policies and guidelines that the user should be familiar with before becoming a contributor. The block appeal can be extended to a maximum of 6 months with the promise of support in case of complexities in understanding them. Note that serving early warnings to newcomers without proper guidance or educative polices & guidelines to help them can lead to unnecessary blocks and alienation.
The second type of aversion method for unhealthy practices is a gentle approach that assumes good faith in the editor that certain members label as conflicting. Here the administrator gives the user a collaborative and friendly statement on the problem (if there is one), and invites the user to other activities of the project or (if the user has been a significant contributor) may give primary user rights to the editor if needed so they can respond in the future as a good contributor. These positive sanctions can often lead to healthy contributions. However, in a small number of cases overconfident usage of new user rights leads to similar problems the editor previously exhibited and their rights may be expunged for bad faith practices. However this method isn't reserved for active editors with experience who fails to honor basic Wikipedia policies that would disturb harmonious environment in Wikipedia.
When aversion methods for non-collaborative practices don't seem to be effective, the user may bebanned and in severe cases excluded from the community.
These processes address the alienation of other contributors or trauma caused to them, which in turn reduces resentment. Contributors who are listened to and part of the process will generally not feel alienated if the discussion doesn't favour their position on policy grounds, because they know that they are part of the project. The increased contributions in this more collaborative community will far outweigh those made by disruptive editors. Therefore, productive contributions in any forms arenot a valid excuse for disruptive or anti-collaborative behaviour.
Editors need to learn how collaborative editing works, and it might require non-disruptive practice to achieve this skill (especially for first-timers). Collaboration is about moving forward and this is only possible if there is an agreeability. Therefore, involved editors in conflict should depend on one another. When editing on an article, this may involve negotiation and compromise on the talk page with editors who hold opposing points of view. In the actual editing environment, when one of your edits is rejected (reverted) by an another with summary or their reasoning in talk page notification, don't simply repeat it, but stay within theBOLD, revert, discuss cycle initiated by the person who rejected it and collaborate with the discussion on the talk page pertalk page guidelines. Don'tattack other editors, butfocus on content andinstitutional context, and in some cases on the sociopolitical context. It's essential everyone involved in the discussion should communicate in an unambiguous (on policy and evidence, don't assumeothers know), interested (on problem solving), and non-hostile manner.
Never try toforce your edit. You shouldassume good faith and seek to create a consensus version of your proposed edit before using it. Wikipedia is based on the idea that no one knows everything, but everyone knows something. It's important to understand editors who hold opposing points of view have made their edit from substantial evidences and homework. Productive contributors should evaluate sources and make themselves familiar (with or without help) with the sources unknown to the other, so that they all have a significant idea about the problem and aspects of POVs. This attempt should let you re-express the other's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your opposing editor says, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way". Always be open to new information, and assume that your initial understanding of a concept or an event is probably partial, simplistic, or biased. Seek to merge your views with those of others if the evidences they bring aresatisfactory. Working towardinclusionism, for you and the article, will benefit from the outcome.