User:Fluffernutter/CommunityVsEditor

Many conflicts that arise at a meta-level on Wikipedia seem to spawn from the fact that there are a few major viewpoints about what element of Wikipedia should have primacy: the community-first perspective, the editor-first perspective, and the project-first perspective. Everyone takes pieces of all of these viewpoints at various times, but it's worth analyzing each them in isolation to see if it gives us any insight into how they may lead to clashes.

Community-first perspective
Wikipedians who take the community-first perspective tend to feel that where there is a healthy community, a healthy encyclopedia will follow. That is, individual community members should strive to be a functional element within the community, because it is only with a healthy community of editors that we can do our best work.


 * What this means:
 * Everyone should consider themselves both fed by and beholden to the good of the community
 * What is right for the community may not be the first preference of any individual editor
 * Good content comes from good writers who are supported by a community, not just from good writers


 * What this does not mean:
 * "lolfacebook". Community-first editors are distinct from "social media" types who view Wikipedia as a source of entertainment networking. Believing in the good of "the community" is not the same as being here to make friends and play games.
 * Everyone's will must be subjugated to the community
 * You can't be part of the community if you disagree with some or all of its qualities

Editor-first perspective
Wikipedians who take the editor-first perspective tend to feel that where there are good writers, good content will follow, and that the "community" aspect of Wikipedia is less important. That is, the community is here to support the work of individual editors, and if the community gets in the way of an editor's desire to write articles, then the goal has been lost.


 * What this means:
 * The existence of a community here is a side effect of having a number of writers all hanging out in the same place. Community isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's not "the" thing.
 * What is right for the "content creators" who write articles should be given precedence over what is right for those who support or distract the content creators
 * Good content comes from good writers who are not distracted by networking or having to focus on making friends


 * What this doesn't mean:
 * Editor-first Wikipedians believe they're better than everyone else
 * People who don't value the community most highly don't consider themselves, or want to be, part of the community

Project-first perspective
Wikipedians who take the project-first perspective tend to feel that the individual writers and the community they form are two means to an end; and that the produced end result (the encyclopedia) is the criterion by which they need to be evaluated, and process is the simples way to manage the mix.


 * What this means:


 * What this doesn't mean:

What this means for community discussion
The matter of the greater good, as opposed to one editor's right to act as they wish when that differs from how others think they should act, is a common point of contention in many conflicts. For example, conflicts over civility often involve back-and-forth claims that so-and-so is so uncivil that they drive away other editors (community-first perspective), countered by claims that so-and-so is writing good content and can't be expected to also babysit people's feelings. Neither side understands why the other feels their preferred group is more important, and both sides feel that the other doesn't understand that makes Wikipedia tick.

Similarly, discussions about editor retention often bog down in discussions of where resources are best expended - where they will influence the most people, or where they will influence the most prolific people. Single-purpose accounts can often be startlingly competent and productive in narrow areas, but have little (or negative) influence on the strength of the community. Are they worth expending resources on? What about newbies, who can be a drain on both community resources and the productivity of more experienced editors? Is Randy in Boise worth supporting, or should more experienced editors have the right to tell him to get lost if he gets in their way?

The answer to where these lines lie is, of course, dependent on your perspective regarding the relative importance of community vs. editor. I believe, however, that it is valuable for those working from both perspectives to be able to understand what the other perspective values and what it's commonly thought to believe, but actually doesn't.