In november 2004, I started this page on the Dutch Wikipedia. For some obscure reason, I started it in English and not in Dutch. I probably considered using the text in a discussion on the English-language Wikipedia.
This text is a theoretical study on the ways to avoid, solve, and mitigate conflicts on the Dutch Wikipedia.
Initially, I want to investigate the following questions:
I define the terms conflict, dispute, and difference of opinion in the following way:
I use the word party in the sense of "a person or a group of persons with a certain opinion that is opposed".
The following examples illustrate these definitions.
Difference of opinion:
|
|
Two people disagree on which facts are true. |
Dispute:
|
|
Two people disagree on what decision must be taken. |
Conflict:
|
|
The dispute turned into a conflict, because emotions came into the scene. It's not about correct or false anymore, it's now about Right or Wrong. |
Thesis 1: Conflicts cannot be managed without some understanding of the emotions involved. |
Proof: to be supplied in the section #How can conflicts be resolved?
I guess most people would answer this question with a "Yes" without hesitation. Conflicts hurt people, and most people do not want to see people hurt. Conflicts deprive Wikipedia contributors of the fun they have in working on Wikipedia. Conflicts make people resign as contributors or sysops. Conflicts drain people's energy.
I agree, but there is more to say. First, I introduce a criterion: In the context of this discussion, things are good if they further the goal of the Wikipedia project. Things are bad if they hamper the goal of the Wikipedia project. The goal of the Wikipedia project is
Thesis 2: Wikipedia is fun or it is over |
Proof: Since Wikipedia must remain freely available, it does not accept investments, subsidies or grants that come with restrictive conditions. Since Wikipedia doesn't accept that kind of money, it can't afford to pay its editors (or even its founders) reasonable wages. Since Wikipedia doesn't pay wages it depends on volunteer editors. Since Wikipedia depends on volunteer editors, it cannot survive unless writing for Wikipedia is fun.
What makes Wikipedia fun? |
---|
What makes Wikipedia fun is not the same for all Wikipedia volunteers.
|
Conflicts are not all bad. The following points can be considered the positive side of conflicts:
I believe democracy is the best power structure a state can have. To me, that is hardly worth discussing; it's obvious! However, if someone presents counterarguments, I will be forced to think about it, and enter proof for my position. As a result, I may find out that a democracy means more than having elections.
Just about every decision that must be taken in building an encyclopedia can be the object of a dispute, and hence, of a conflict. I think that most conflicts are about one of the following types of questions:
Conflicts about individual articles usually fall within one of the following categories:
For some reason, people care about the bits and bytes stored in the Wikimedia database servers. Why? Why would I care that somebody writes that Gabriel Fahrenheit was a Pole or a German or a Prussian? First of all, because I like Wikipedia to be a high-quality encyclopedia, with correct information. People can be particular involved, because:
Things that can add up to the stress:
...
The effects of psychological 'ownership'
In the context of conflict control, there are two types of people:
The first type of person resembles a cook that loves to mess around in the kitchen, try something new, just for the fun of cooking. Whether other people like the food no so important. The second type of person is like a cook that finds it a challenge to prepare something that everybody finds delicious. He does not so much enjoy the work in the steamy kitchen, but is prepared to go through the trouble to make the perfect meal.
The second type of person is likely to be more critical and quality-centered than the first type.
The first type of person, when confronted with a Wikipedia article written about a local pub, is likely to say "If someone enjoys writing about a pub, what can be against it?" The second type of person is likely to react "That subject is hardly suitable for an article in an encyclopedia. Let's remove it."
In the situation where we have both types of people, the danger exists that somebody of the second type is so critical that it spoils the fun of the first type of people.
... Typical scenario:
It is important to realize that "Personal attack" is not an exact term. What one person may call a personal attack, is considered an acceptable form of criticism by the next person. Often, someone does not recognize that his words are taken as personal criticism.
The following scenario is quite common:
... (containment)
[Myths about conflicts, The conflict life-cycle, ...]
The basic goal of Wikipedia is that there should be an entry in Wikipedia for every topic for which a meaningful entry could be written.
As you see, I did not finish this page. However, I thought that the part that is ready was nice enough to keep. So, I put it here.
In november 2004, I started this page on the Dutch Wikipedia. For some obscure reason, I started it in English and not in Dutch. I probably considered using the text in a discussion on the English-language Wikipedia.
This text is a theoretical study on the ways to avoid, solve, and mitigate conflicts on the Dutch Wikipedia.
Initially, I want to investigate the following questions:
I define the terms conflict, dispute, and difference of opinion in the following way:
I use the word party in the sense of "a person or a group of persons with a certain opinion that is opposed".
The following examples illustrate these definitions.
Difference of opinion:
|
|
Two people disagree on which facts are true. |
Dispute:
|
|
Two people disagree on what decision must be taken. |
Conflict:
|
|
The dispute turned into a conflict, because emotions came into the scene. It's not about correct or false anymore, it's now about Right or Wrong. |
Thesis 1: Conflicts cannot be managed without some understanding of the emotions involved. |
Proof: to be supplied in the section #How can conflicts be resolved?
I guess most people would answer this question with a "Yes" without hesitation. Conflicts hurt people, and most people do not want to see people hurt. Conflicts deprive Wikipedia contributors of the fun they have in working on Wikipedia. Conflicts make people resign as contributors or sysops. Conflicts drain people's energy.
I agree, but there is more to say. First, I introduce a criterion: In the context of this discussion, things are good if they further the goal of the Wikipedia project. Things are bad if they hamper the goal of the Wikipedia project. The goal of the Wikipedia project is
Thesis 2: Wikipedia is fun or it is over |
Proof: Since Wikipedia must remain freely available, it does not accept investments, subsidies or grants that come with restrictive conditions. Since Wikipedia doesn't accept that kind of money, it can't afford to pay its editors (or even its founders) reasonable wages. Since Wikipedia doesn't pay wages it depends on volunteer editors. Since Wikipedia depends on volunteer editors, it cannot survive unless writing for Wikipedia is fun.
What makes Wikipedia fun? |
---|
What makes Wikipedia fun is not the same for all Wikipedia volunteers.
|
Conflicts are not all bad. The following points can be considered the positive side of conflicts:
I believe democracy is the best power structure a state can have. To me, that is hardly worth discussing; it's obvious! However, if someone presents counterarguments, I will be forced to think about it, and enter proof for my position. As a result, I may find out that a democracy means more than having elections.
Just about every decision that must be taken in building an encyclopedia can be the object of a dispute, and hence, of a conflict. I think that most conflicts are about one of the following types of questions:
Conflicts about individual articles usually fall within one of the following categories:
For some reason, people care about the bits and bytes stored in the Wikimedia database servers. Why? Why would I care that somebody writes that Gabriel Fahrenheit was a Pole or a German or a Prussian? First of all, because I like Wikipedia to be a high-quality encyclopedia, with correct information. People can be particular involved, because:
Things that can add up to the stress:
...
The effects of psychological 'ownership'
In the context of conflict control, there are two types of people:
The first type of person resembles a cook that loves to mess around in the kitchen, try something new, just for the fun of cooking. Whether other people like the food no so important. The second type of person is like a cook that finds it a challenge to prepare something that everybody finds delicious. He does not so much enjoy the work in the steamy kitchen, but is prepared to go through the trouble to make the perfect meal.
The second type of person is likely to be more critical and quality-centered than the first type.
The first type of person, when confronted with a Wikipedia article written about a local pub, is likely to say "If someone enjoys writing about a pub, what can be against it?" The second type of person is likely to react "That subject is hardly suitable for an article in an encyclopedia. Let's remove it."
In the situation where we have both types of people, the danger exists that somebody of the second type is so critical that it spoils the fun of the first type of people.
... Typical scenario:
It is important to realize that "Personal attack" is not an exact term. What one person may call a personal attack, is considered an acceptable form of criticism by the next person. Often, someone does not recognize that his words are taken as personal criticism.
The following scenario is quite common:
... (containment)
[Myths about conflicts, The conflict life-cycle, ...]
The basic goal of Wikipedia is that there should be an entry in Wikipedia for every topic for which a meaningful entry could be written.
As you see, I did not finish this page. However, I thought that the part that is ready was nice enough to keep. So, I put it here.