Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. By treating others with respect, we are able to cooperate effectively in building an encyclopedia.
This page gives suggestions and guidelines on how to work with other users. In addition, there are two important conventions which may be strongly enforced as policy:
- No personal attacks; while criticising the work of other contributors is fine, personal attacks and insults regarding their race, sex, creed etc. are unacceptable. For further guidance, see No personal attacks.
- No offensive usernames; users should not choose usernames likely to cause offence to other users. For further guidance, see No offensive usernames.
- Try to say something positive for each complaint you make. A few compliments can proactively smoothen feathers and make the author less likely to simply take offence at the criticism. A safe approach is to "sandwich" the complaint between compliments, with something positive at the beginning and end of your commentary.
- Remove or summarise old complaints. Once you are fairly certain that the person you're critiquing has seen your complaint (e.g., they've responded to it), be honorable about removing or summarising it. The author will sometimes feel reluctant to remove criticism out of fear that it will make them appear fearful of evaluations from others. You can go even a step further and thank them for addressing (or at least considering) your issue.
- Say nice things when you can. Do not assume that by not complaining, the author "ought to know their work is OK". If you like what you read, tell them so. Typically, people only bother to use Talk pages when they have an "issue" with the article, thus automatically giving a negative connotation to them and making it inevitable for arguments to arise on the pages. Remember that, when training an animal (and humans *are* animals), positive reinforcement is vital.
- Try posing comments as questions, especially if you're not totally sure. Instead of saying, "Everyone knows abortion is murder of the innocents," you could say, "Isn't abortion just murder of the innocents?" and it comes across less like pure flamebait, as though you're willing to allow for other points of view.
- Limit and qualify your statement. Blanket statements or statements asserting the truth of opinions that can inflame the reader and sometimes, if you identify it as your own personal point of view, it can help make it seem less insulting to those who disagree. For example, instead of asking, "Isn't abortion just murder of the innocents?" it could be better to say, "Certainly I am not the only person who believes abortion is just murder of the innocents." In this way, you can still emphasize your strong feelings on the topic, and communicate exactly the same opinion, but do so in a less inflammatory way.
- Acknowledge that you understand the other point of view by presenting yourself as able to restate it fairly. "I understand that you feel a woman's freedom of choice in the matter of abortion is important, but certainly I am not the only one who disagrees with this and thinks that abortion is just murder of the innocents."
- Help in moderating other people's disagreements when you come across them. This is the same concept as pulling two people engaged in a fist fight apart. Sometimes just pointing out that the discussion has gotten too heated and that they need to chill out can help a great deal to tone things down and to emphasize that, in this community, public verbal sparring is _unacceptable_. "Hey guys, you're going around and around on this abortion debate; it seems illogical that we could solve this issue here on Wikipedia when it's been fought over for years. Both of you seem to have strong opinions on this matter -- perhaps we should remove this debate and make room for someone with less bias."
- Take care writing on topics you are passionate about. The rule here is to write articles neutrally. It's difficult to be unbiased when you are biased.
- Finally, As a Last Resort, when you've tried to work in a cooperative spirit and are not getting through, or when an editor keeps replacing NPOV writings with their own personal ideology, there is one last thing you can do to improve the situation. Walk away. Yes, walk away. Just bookmark the page, and come back in a week or two. Ideologues tend to give up when the general consensus to stick to the npov proves too strong to override. Also, Wikipedia's npov policy is supported and defended by many Wikipedians, so you don't have to singlehandedly uphold it. Attempting to do so sometimes just escalates the problem.
Most of the above suggestions can be summarized very succinctly: Be Polite. It's more important (and useful) than you may think. See also Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot.
We are editing each others' work, and when working on political and other incendiary topics, inevitably, a lot of the edits reflect our personal biases. Very often, political disagreements are interpreted as personal insults or attacks on our intelligence, dignity, cherished values, or honesty. Egos can get wounded, and concomitant attacks and defensiveness are all too natural. So, the talk pages are there--and are used to duke it out verbally.
But we can avoid many of these situations. We have to bear a few things in mind:
- The basic purpose of the talk pages is to help improve the article to which the talk page is attached.
- Wikipedia is not a debate forum -- that's not what it's designed for. If you want to debate, there exist more appropriate venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis.
- The fact that someone disagrees with you does not mean that (1) the person hates you, (2) the person thinks you're stupid, (3) the person is stupid, (4) the person is evil, etc. There are many things you can falsely infer from the fact that someone disagrees with you. It is best not to infer anything along those lines at all, and let that person live with his or her own opinion in peace.
- Before adding a comment to a talk page, ask yourself:
- Is this really necessary? Why can't I simply edit the article with a summary and leave it at that? Won't it be obvious what I've done and why?
- Will I actually succeed in changing any minds? If not, what point does the discussion have, given that the purpose of Wikipedia is to create encyclopedia articles?
- Am I adding this comment simply because I want to defend my ego and advance my own cause?
- If I really want to continue this debate, is it of general interest, or would it be better to take it to e-mail?
- Efficiency often requires silence.
So let's please, please conscientiously avoid trying to use Wikipedia as a place where partisan controversies can be settled.
What looks to you like partisan controversies are usually very useful discussions that result in an improved article.
- That is sometimes the case -- but often it isn't. Debates on such pages as talk:abortion, talk:cultural imperialism, and talk:sports utility vehicle have very often strayed into discussions that have nothing to do with improving the article. That, at the very least, is the sort of thing we're talking about.
The controversy might look irrelevant, but the topic will eventually come back around to something having to do with the article.
- Sometimes that does happen, and so much the better. But why not get right to the relevant topic and skip the intervening wrangling? Moreover, of course, very often in our experience the discussion doesn't come back around to anything having to do with the article -- it results, instead, in hardened positions. (As though defending hardened positions had anything to do with writing an encyclopedia!)
Well, the talk page controversies get people excited about Wikipedia. Would you rather that they not be excited? A controversy-less wiki would be boring. Maybe the controversy actually brings more people to Wikipedia.
- The controversies do bring some people back to Wikipedia, perhaps -- but it's equally reasonable to say that they also turn off a lot of other people, the sort of people who don't ever engage in such controversies. You should also bear in mind that Wikipedia is extremely exciting quite apart from the controversies -- exciting enough all by itself to keep us coming back.
But I'm free to do whatever I please here. This is a Wiki, right?
- No, you're not free to do just anything here. Wikipedia doesn't belong to you; you have to share it with everyone else. The Wikipedia's reason for being is to produce a complete, neutral and free encyclopedia, and we formulate most policies as a community working toward this goal. If you can't work with us with this aim in mind, you should leave Wikipedia and start a separate project.
A little partisan controversy never hurt anybody. We all know we're ultimately engaged in building an encyclopedia. Why try to stop people from doing what comes naturally? A little controversy won't spoil anything -- I don't see what you're concerned about.
- Good point, maybe we are blowing things out of proportion a little. Even if Wikipedia would continue to grow and thrive with the controversy, some of us think it would be better off without it. It seems we have wasted hundreds of hours, altogether, engaged in pointless debates that we could have avoided with tact, maturity, and attention to the task at hand. Instead, we could have been further along than we are now, perhaps with more participants as well. If we can start a good anti-partisan-bickering habit now, then future Wikipedians will thank us for it in the years ahead.
Arguing as a means of improving an article is a pale shadow of an equal amount of time engaged in research[?]. It may attract people to the project, but it seems logical that these would be people interested in arguing, which leads down a dark path we ought not tread.
One habit that would be good for folks to get into is to actively seek to summarize discussions, especially those which have elaborated all views on the subject. This doesn't (necessarily) mean replacing the entire discussion with what you think. It simply means trying to recast the entire discussion as, e.g., a set of bullet points, removing any points that have been taken back or proven incorrect. If you can restrain yourself to do this in an unbiased fashion (which admittedly is hard), it can result in text that is almost good enough for the main article.