User:Johan Lont/Essay on conflicts on Wikipedia

About this page
In november 2004, I started this page on the Dutch Wikipedia. For some obscure reason, I started it in English and not in Dutch. I probably considered using the text in a discussion on the English-language Wikipedia.

This text is a theoretical study on the ways to avoid, solve, and mitigate conflicts on the Dutch Wikipedia.

''Everyone is welcome to add their thoughts on this page or on User talk:Johan Lont/Essay on conflicts on Wikipedia. ''

Introduction
Initially, I want to investigate the following questions:
 * What is a conflict?
 * Is a conflict a bad thing? Why, or why not?
 * What can be the objects of conflicts in Wikipedia?
 * What are sources of conflict?
 * How does a source of conflict evolve into a conflict?
 * How can conflicts be resolved?

The anatomy of a conflict
I define the terms conflict, dispute, and difference of opinion in the following way: I use the word party in the sense of "a person or a group of persons with a certain opinion that is opposed".
 * A conflict is a dispute in which the issue is perceived as a matter of right or wrong, or a matter of justice or injustice. (Alternatively, a conflict is a dispute in which both sides try to 'win' at the cost of the other side. )
 * A dispute (in Dutch: geschil) is a difference of opinion in which two parties disagree about what should be done.
 * A difference of opinion is a situation where two parties disagree about what is true.

The following examples illustrate these definitions.

Difference of opinion:

Dispute:

Conflict:

Proof: to be supplied in the section

Conflict is bad
I guess most people would answer this question with a "Yes" without hesitation. Conflicts hurt people, and most people do not want to see people hurt. Conflicts deprive Wikipedia contributors of the fun they have in working on Wikipedia. Conflicts make people resign as contributors or sysops. Conflicts drain people's energy.

I agree, but there is more to say. First, I introduce a criterion: In the context of this discussion, things are good if they further the goal of the Wikipedia project. Things are bad if they hamper the goal of the Wikipedia project. The goal of the Wikipedia project is
 * to create an information source in an encyclopedia format that is freely available. 

Proof: Since Wikipedia must remain freely available, it does not accept investments, subsidies or grants that come with restrictive conditions. Since Wikipedia doesn't accept that kind of money, it can't afford to pay its editors (or even its founders) reasonable wages. Since Wikipedia doesn't pay wages it depends on volunteer editors. Since Wikipedia depends on volunteer editors, it cannot survive unless writing for Wikipedia is fun.

Conflict are not all bad
Conflicts are not all bad. The following points can be considered the positive side of conflicts:
 * Conflicts help identify weaknesses in the Wikipedia contents and structure.
 * The presence of conflicts proves people care about quality.
 * Conflicts force us to find sources of facts to support the information.
 * Conflicts force us to try to forge an acceptable content for all editors, which helps to create acceptable content for all readers - fosters neutral point of view. As a result, conflicts help to find a neutral point of view.

Example
I believe democracy is the best power structure a state can have. To me, that is hardly worth discussing; it's obvious! However, if someone presents counterarguments, I will be forced to think about it, and enter proof for my position. As a result, I may find out that a democracy means more than having elections.

What can be the objects of a conflicts in Wikipedia?
Just about every decision that must be taken in building an encyclopedia can be the object of a dispute, and hence, of a conflict. I think that most conflicts are about one of the following types of questions:
 * Decisions involving a single article.
 * Decisions about policies, procedures, voting, etc.
 * Sanctions that should be imposed when someone violated a rule in a particular case.

Conflicts about individual articles usually fall within one of the following categories:
 * Involving the content of the article:
 * Is X a subject suitable for Wikipedia?
 * Is this information correct?
 * Is this information presented from a neutral point of view?
 * Is this information relevant and useful for this article?
 * Involving the form of the article:
 * Is Y the right title for this article (singular/plural, spelling of name, etc)
 * Spelling and grammar issues
 * What is the right style and tone (formal/informal, long or short sentences, etc)
 * Layout and typographical style (color, position and size of figures and tables)
 * Structure (headings, one long or many short articles)
 * Navigation (linking, categories, lists, disambiguation articles).
 * Which internal and external links must be included.

What are sources of conflict?
For some reason, people care about the bits and bytes stored in the Wikimedia database servers. Why? Why would I care that somebody writes that Gabriel Fahrenheit was a Pole or a German or a Prussian? First of all, because I like Wikipedia to be a high-quality encyclopedia, with correct information. People can be particular involved, because:
 * they put a lot of effort and creativity in an article or project.
 * they feel especially proud about an article.
 * they are personally involved with the subject (national, personal, religious beliefs)

Things that can add up to the stress: ...
 * Lack of appreciation of one's work ( waar doe ik het allemaal voor )
 * (Personal attacks) Lack of trust - Questioning someone's integrity - questioning someone's competence - questioning someone's motives - accusations of wrong intentions

The effects of psychological 'ownership'

In the context of conflict control, there are two types of people: The first type of person resembles a cook that loves to mess around in the kitchen, try something new, just for the fun of cooking. Whether other people like the food no so important. The second type of person is like a cook that finds it a challenge to prepare something that everybody finds delicious. He does not so much enjoy the work in the steamy kitchen, but is prepared to go through the trouble to make the perfect meal.
 * 1) Some are primarily interested in the creative process – not so much in the end result.
 * 2) Some are more interested in the end result than in the creative process.

The second type of person is likely to be more critical and quality-centered than the first type.

The first type of person, when confronted with a Wikipedia article written about a local pub, is likely to say "If someone enjoys writing about a pub, what can be against it?" The second type of person is likely to react "That subject is hardly suitable for an article in an encyclopedia. Let's remove it."

In the situation where we have both types of people, the danger exists that somebody of the second type is so critical that it spoils the fun of the first type of people.

How does a source of conflict evolve into a conflict?
... Typical scenario:

It is important to realize that "Personal attack" is not an exact term. What one person may call a personal attack, is considered an acceptable form of criticism by the next person. Often, someone does not recognize that his words are taken as personal criticism.

The following scenario is quite common:
 * 1) Person A criticizes a sentence from a Wikipedia article.
 * 2) Person B does not understand the reason of the criticism (possibly, A was not very clear, possibly, B does not know enough of the subject matter of the article.
 * 3) Person A becomes irritated, because B seems to ignore his arguments. Person A thinks that person B is not willing to take the trouble to study the material and that as a result of that, person A must go through a lot of effort to convince B that A's edits are a real improvement. Person A thinks: "If B would only have read on the Internet what is already known about this subject, B would understand that I was right. Person A writes on the talk page: "If you would only have studied the facts, you would understand that your version contains nonsense".
 * 4) Person B feels attacked personally. He thinks: "Person A accuses me of not making an effort. What A calls 'nonsense' is something that I wrote with all the good intentions. I even tried to integrate A's remarks in my text. B thinks: "XXXX you!! if you think you know everything better!", but B restrains himself, and writes to A: "Will person A please refrain from personal attacks at my expense."
 * 5) Person A, was not aware of accusing anybody, and responds: "I'm sorry, I didn't know you would take offence. If you can't handle criticism, perhaps you should not be editing controverisal subjects".
 * 6) And person C adds: "If you can't even spell 'controversial', why do you meddle with the contents of Wikipedia?"
 * 7) and so on.

How can conflicts be avoided?

 * 1) Don't try to avoid conflict at all cost. Conflicts are not completely bad.
 * 2) Education
 * 3) Show appreciation
 * 4) Explain - explain - explain: want you want, why, and why you think your proposal is the best.
 * 5) Do not accuse another of ill-will (even if you honestly believe that that is the case).

How can the harmful effects of conflicts be reduced (mitigated)
... (containment)

[Myths about conflicts, The conflict life-cycle, ...]

The basic goal of Wikipedia is that there should be an entry in Wikipedia for every topic for which a meaningful entry could be written.

'''As you see, I did not finish this page. However, I thought that the part that is ready was nice enough to keep. So, I put it here.'''

nl:Gebruiker:Johan Lont/Conflictbeheersing op Wikipedia