User:VeryVerily/Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies

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.

User:VeryVerily's version

Disclaimer: This is just me rambling.

The first of these continua employ standard Wiki terms. The others I just made up.

Eventualism vs. immediatism

Extreme immediatism

• The key is to make Wikipedia a useful and reliable Internet resource as of now.

• Any edit which is problematic should be reverted on sight; there is no time to fix it while live.

• New ideas for changes should be developed in a sandbox.

Moderate immediatism

• Articles should be in as good condition as possible when they are live.

• Dispute notices should be avoided unless there's no clear "right" version to post in interim.

• Reverting poor writing and unbalanced coverage is appropriate. Cleaning it up would be too tricky and take too long.

• Sandboxes are most geared towards proposed major edits.

Moderate eventualism

• It is worth maintaining articles in good condition, but not to the extent it would stymie their organic growth through the Wiki process.

• Edits should only be reverted if they are unsalvageable or at least hard to salvage.

• Poor and biased writing should be addressed, but unless there is no content should not simply be erased.

Extreme eventualism

• The process of free, continuous editing will in the long run make articles better and better.

• Only vandalism should be reverted. Anyone who makes an edit has something to say which should be respected.

• Poor and biased writing and misinformation will be corrected in due time. Relax.

Statusquoism

Deliberately not in continuum order to order concepts.

Moderate statusquoism

• The state an article has been in for some length of time is the benchmark.

• Edits which add controversial material should be reverted until justified in Talk.

Moderate anti-statusquoism

• Edits should not be reverted unless they are truly just troublesome.

• Poor writing is not a problem; later editors will fix it up.

• If an edit is so controversial that it should be reverted, an explanation should be given on Talk so the author can respond.

Extreme anti-statusquoism

• Edits should not be reverted unless they are basically vandalism.

• Poor writing, biased coverage, and questionable information is no problem; in time, later editors will fix this up.

• Similar to eventualism.

Extreme statusquoism

• An article should not be altered in any potentially controversial way without prior justification.

• The removal of controversial content, say pending fact-checking or discussion, should be reverted until justified in Talk and agreed upon.

• The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to make a change. Unless they're reverting.

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.

Encyclopedism

• The sole purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia; social interaction is a byproduct of no importance.

• Treating people respectfully and being nice to newbies is only desirable inasmuch as it encourages contribution.

• 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.

Authorism vs. anti-authorism

Authorism

• Articles, or sections of article, often have a distinguished "main author" who is primarily the writer of the article.

• The original author should be regarded as having more clout than others in how it should be organized and flow.

• While major changes by non-authors should require justification, the original author should feel entitled to reorganize his own prose.

• An article may require inquiry as to "original intent" from the author before changes are made.

Anti-authorism

(I'd like a punchier name for this. How about communalism?)

• There is no author for articles. Although one person may seed an article, each one is a community effort.

• Once an article text has been submitted, the submitter has no special privileges vis-a-vis future edits to that text.

• There is no "original intent" other than what is in the text and perhaps notes on the discussion page.

Rehabilism vs. anti-rehabilism

Sketchy

Anti-rehabilism

• 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.

• Don't feed the trolls.

Rehabilism

• Every editor, even a vandal, is a potential contributor.

• Every opportunity should be extended to a former troll for rehabilitation.

• Meatball:AssumeGoodFaith. Give the benefit of the doubt.

• The cost of fighting a troll is higher than fixing whatever trouble the troll causes.

Edit warring

Wholly lacking titles here.

WikiPacifism

• Edit wars considered harmful. They are also childish and pointless.

• 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

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.

• Don't feed the trolls.

Rehabilism

• Every editor, even vandals, is a potential contributor.

• Every opportunity should be extended for a former troll to rehabilitate themselves.

• Meatball:AssumeGoodFaith. Give the benefit of the doubt.

• 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.

Edit warring

Wholly lacking titles here.

WikiPacifism

• Edit wars considered harmful. They are also childish and pointless.
• 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

• Wikipedia is a m:battlefield of ideas; 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.

Neutrality

This section was added by Charles Stewart and The Cunctator.

Basic skill

• 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.

Factions

Factionalism

To be completed.

Antifactionalism

To be completed.