User:Tmorton166/making a difference

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

Contents

[edit] Introduction

One of the great things about Wikipedia is the idea that it is an open community that anyone can edit; unfortunately this leads to one of its greatest downfalls. That of no consensus - by this I mean that there will always be someone who disagrees, whether it be with a policy, a vote or a discussion there is always differing opinions. This of course helps to keep content both fresh and neutral but also has negative aspects.

Disagreements / arguments can get out of hand meaning many users can fall out and become angry, none of this can really be stopped by admins or bureaucrats (except with extreme measures such as banning etc.). In a way the actual process of falling out can be good, as I said above it helps keep articles fresh and free of bias, however the problem comes as Wikipedians become more and more worked up over the dispute. In such a state they say or do things that can aggravate a situation and turn the community (possibly unfairly) against them.

The other flipside of this is for a user to attempt, either as a third or as an involved party, to diffuse the dispute and discuss it fairly. Then for it to break down, either after an agreement has been reached that a disputant refuses to accept or through failure to solve a disagreement. Again he / she may feel angry and 'forced out' by the community.

I have seen copious examples of all of these and been close hand witness to a couple in my role as a mediator from Medcab. Although they are not highly regular occurrences they do still happen and can end up having a disproportionately large affect on Wikipedia.

[edit] Outcomes of anger

This essay isn't actually about any of the above (either the disputes or the break down of disputes) but rather about the aftermath, as a problem is finished with, forcibly solved or continuing but getting nowhere. In this situation we get angry Wikipedians who have lost their trust in the community and as a result may decide to leave forever or threaten to become vandals.

It's a sad fact that this happens regularly, especially to third parties who desperately are trying to calm down disagreements and end up embroiled. The questions are, though, can these users be 'rescued'? Can they be convinced to carry on editing in good faith and to put past experiences behind them? In short, can they trust the community again?

[edit] An issue of trust

I think they can, in fact I know they can as I have proved it! A simple email helped an excellent Wikipedian who had become embroiled in a situation that ended up both beyond his control and with anger directed at him - even though he was a third party.

In the event I can't blame him for his feelings, in fact he himself threatened retribution on the community he felt had turned it's back - again who could blame him.

But could trust be restored? Well yes. A simple thoughtful email from me managed to convince him that it was worth a second attempt.

[edit] So what can be done

The example above is probably not a great example this kind of issue, the Wikipedian in question is not the kind of person (in my opinion) to stay disillusioned, if nothing else he appears to be a Wiki-addict and I doubt vowing never to return would have lasted. But there are other people who become vandals or who decide to leave who do mean it and will follow through - can this kind of Wikipedian be helped to?

I think that messages on talk pages can help, a system of support from various users can help someone change their mind. People who say yes this person has helped and can still do much more. The problem is this doesn't happen very often as it requires someone to make the first move - and to round up others to make the move.

Another solution that really works is email, if nothing else a good email shows thought and kindness - the sort of thing that can really help someone feeling bad. But again it requires people to make the effort.

[edit] Existing solutions

Well there isn't much really is there? The kindness campaign I suppose, but that is really just to show general appreciation not specifically at upset Wikipedians. The closest example I can think of really is the Esperanza reach out initiative - to those people in need of wikilove...

Even these aren’t perfect. As I said above the Kindness Campaign is a very general community whilst the Esperanza initiative just does not get the publication and support - mostly due to it being just a small part of that community.

[edit] Proposals

I did say this was just an essay, hmm so I lied. Perhaps proposals aren’t what we need, maybe action would be better but then again you never know. If some other Wikipedians want to help make these happen it may be useful.

  1. People should try to help angry or stressed Wikipedians. Mostly try and get people to show support for someone undergoing difficulties.
  2. As an extension of that there could be a full organization / community where people can request help for them (or more probably) for other Wikipedians. Then the gears of the machine grind, emails are sent, other users are chivied into commenting.

Actually on second thoughts we only need that last proposal - a group of people willing to try and make a difference, to marshal support for people. Maybe it could be called WikiHelp

Thoughts?