 | This is an
essay. 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. |
To attract and retain the participation of experts, there would have
to be little patience for those who do not understand or agree with
Wikipedia's mission, or even for those pretentious mediocrities who
are not able to work with others constructively and recognize when
there are holes in their knowledge (collectively, probably the most
disruptive group of all). A less tolerant attitude toward disruption
would make the project more polite, welcoming, and indeed open to
the vast majority of intelligent, well-meaning people on the Internet.
.
- -- Larry Sanger
_Jean-Baptiste-Camille_Corot_(Louvre).jpg)
|
Wikipedia thrives on the ability of all visitors to edit freely, and all are assumed to act in good faith. Without this basic trust there would not be a Wikipedia. But just because we assume good faith does not mean we tolerate bad behaviour.
If someone obviously has no intention of contributing constructively to Wikipedia, there is no reason why he or she should consume the time and energy of other contributors. If someone vandalizes, leave him a note; if he continues to vandalize, block him or report him at WP:AIV, and do so without qualm.
If an editor continuously tries to push his own particular point of view, advise him that there are more appropriate places on the Internet for such behaviour. On every wiki there is a right to leave. Explain to him that this is indeed his right; that there are many forums on the Internet for zealots and partisans but Wikipedia is not one of them. Stay polite but be firm!
Avoid arguments that go in circles, as they frustrate many and help nobody. Keep in mind that every discussion that gets out of hand is read by countless other Wikipedians, and increases their wikistress. When a discussion transforms into a squabble over who said what to whom and when, that point is reached.
And when all notifications, explanations, and discussions don't help, and someone altogether hurts the project more than he helps it—be it through malice, stupidity or ignorance—he should leave Wikipedia, ideally voluntarily so, but leave he should. A judicious block can sometimes make a person leave, but also has the potential to do just the opposite and encourage the creation of sockpuppet accounts. That is why such matters should be handled delicately.
It is a great accomplishment that the Wikipedia community so often works well together. But first and foremost, Wikipedia is a project devoted to creating an impartial and free encyclopedia obligated to no one: If you do not share this goal, you do not belong here.
Have fun, be bold and decisive, and ensure that you are judicious when dealing with unproductive editors.
| This is an
essay. 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. |
To attract and retain the participation of experts, there would have
to be little patience for those who do not understand or agree with
Wikipedia's mission, or even for those pretentious mediocrities who
are not able to work with others constructively and recognize when
there are holes in their knowledge (collectively, probably the most
disruptive group of all). A less tolerant attitude toward disruption
would make the project more polite, welcoming, and indeed open to
the vast majority of intelligent, well-meaning people on the Internet.
.
- -- Larry Sanger
|
|
Wikipedia thrives on the ability of all visitors to edit freely, and all are assumed to act in good faith. Without this basic trust there would not be a Wikipedia. But just because we assume good faith does not mean we tolerate bad behaviour.
If someone obviously has no intention of contributing constructively to Wikipedia, there is no reason why he or she should consume the time and energy of other contributors. If someone vandalizes, leave him a note; if he continues to vandalize, block him or report him at WP:AIV, and do so without qualm.
If an editor continuously tries to push his own particular point of view, advise him that there are more appropriate places on the Internet for such behaviour. On every wiki there is a right to leave. Explain to him that this is indeed his right; that there are many forums on the Internet for zealots and partisans but Wikipedia is not one of them. Stay polite but be firm!
Avoid arguments that go in circles, as they frustrate many and help nobody. Keep in mind that every discussion that gets out of hand is read by countless other Wikipedians, and increases their wikistress. When a discussion transforms into a squabble over who said what to whom and when, that point is reached.
And when all notifications, explanations, and discussions don't help, and someone altogether hurts the project more than he helps it—be it through malice, stupidity or ignorance—he should leave Wikipedia, ideally voluntarily so, but leave he should. A judicious block can sometimes make a person leave, but also has the potential to do just the opposite and encourage the creation of sockpuppet accounts. That is why such matters should be handled delicately.
It is a great accomplishment that the Wikipedia community so often works well together. But first and foremost, Wikipedia is a project devoted to creating an impartial and free encyclopedia obligated to no one: If you do not share this goal, you do not belong here.
Have fun, be bold and decisive, and ensure that you are judicious when dealing with unproductive editors.