Wikipedia:Conduct during disagreement

Wikipedia has articles on many controversial topics which bring together editors with different points of view. To avoid inefficient and destructive conflict, editors should adhere to especially high standards of intellectual and social conduct when editing on controversial topics. Existing article content with no obvious reliable sourcing faults should be taken seriously, as should editors who make evidence-backed arguments for views different from your own.

What to do when you disagree with an article
When we disagree with Wikipedia, logic suggests two major (non-exclusive) possibilities:


 * 1) Wikipedia is wrong.
 * 2) We are wrong.

Given the considerable community intellectual input that goes into most articles, it is important to seriously question if we are wrong before assuming Wikipedia is. Therefore, the first thing to do is usually to try and prove ourselves wrong and Wikipedia right. Fight against your own confirmation bias by actively seeking out disconfirming information. Do web searches like “is [what Wikipedia says now] really true” and “why might [what I think] not be true”. Use the information you get back to do even more focused searches. Even asking an AI chatbot can sometimes help, since you can directly ask it questions and it will give you hints on search terms and where your knowledge gaps are. Be delighted to be wrong — successfully disconfirming your own beliefs is a powerful truth-seeking skill that takes practice.

Always remember that no resource, from web searches to AI to articles and books, can be an end point of your work, unless it is a reliable source. Reliable sourcing on controversial topics is often challenging as many sources on these topics mix fact and opinion, even from sentence to sentence within a single document. Consider the following passages from the current version of the reliable sources guideline (emphasis added):

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. "The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc."

Given the emphasis on specifics and context, broad heuristics, such as a reputable/disreputable name or a green/red source from the perennial sources page, can be taken only as positive or negative indicators, never absolutely conclusive. Even generally reliable sources can publish false information, or subjective opinion and analysis that looks like fact. To avoid bias, opinionated content is best replaced with facts or by presenting different opinions with attribution. If you find strong evidence that a claim is false, you usually can (and should) prevent the false information from being presented to Wikipedia readers as true, and there are many ways to do this. While original research is not to be presented within Wikipedia, this does not prevent us from applying editorial discretion by doing source research to evaluate reliability and select reliable sources. In fact, this is sometimes the only way to fully satisfy the demands of reliable sourcing on a controversial topic.

If you now have reliable sources indicating that Wikipedia is wrong, you are now ready to improve Wikipedia. You have the option of boldly editing the article content, or starting a talk page discussion with your findings and proposed new content. For controversial topics, the latter is often more effective, as it makes other editors feel more respected. The main exception is when you need to address policy violations that are clear, impactful, and urgent.

What to do when you disagree with another editor
If someone disagrees with your edits or talk page proposals, assume good faith and listen. Seek out disconfirming information again. If you still think you’re not wrong, go to the talk page, link them by name, and use this formula for successful critical engagement, courtesy of the philosopher Daniel Dennett:

How to compose a successful critical commentary:
 * 1) You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
 * 2) You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
 * 3) You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
 * 4) Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

If other editors ignore or misrepresent your evidence, continue to assume good faith, but do not let such behavior prevent you from making good edits. At such times you can and should describe the behavior for what it is while avoiding needless accusations that the editor is biased or incompetent.