Wikipedia:Uphill battles



Often on Wikipedia, editors will disagree with widely accepted policies and guidelines, or with a more specific type of consensus. Fighting against the majority, and those more widely respected than yourself, can present difficulties. Nonetheless, if you have read their arguments and remain convinced that your position is right, there is nothing wrong with stating your points. Even a consensus can make a bad decision sometimes, and you do the encyclopedia a favor by pointing it out. Remember the Abilene paradox.

When uphill battles are a bad idea

 * If most people are disagreeing with you, they may have a good reason for it.
 * If you are edit warring on specious grounds, people will become extremely annoyed with you, and you could violate the rules.
 * Most uphill battles involve some degree of trying to own Wikipedia articles, or not agreeing with what other people have to say
 * Fighting an uphill battle hardly ever gets you a victory-- and even if you do win in content, you could lose a lot of respect in the eyes of your fellow editors. (But if you are in the right, that is more a reflection on them than on you.)

Signs you're getting into an uphill battle

 * You're the only person reverting to a specific version on a fairly popular article.
 * Your comments directly contradict one or more existing policies.
 * You're absolutely, positively certain that you're right, or at least that everyone else is wrong.
 * You're arguing with an administrator.

Common uphill battles

 * A new editor that disagrees with notability policies concerning their (band/podcast/website/game/software program/company/favorite TV show, etc.), and thinks that it should have an article because it doesn't hurt anyone.
 * An editor that disagrees with notability policies because they're an inclusionist.
 * An editor that disagrees with Wikipedia policies on using non-free images.
 * An editor that disagrees with consensus on a specific topic.

What to do if you're in an uphill battle
B- leave it for someone else to worry about. Chances are, if you're right, reason will win out in the end.
 * Get away from it. Just because you're correct doesn't mean you have to win.
 * A- Make a short comment on how you're done arguing about it, and
 * Up and leave. Just completely tune out the conversation, and then proceed to 1b


 * Do something else. There is something else on Wikipedia you can find to edit that will interest you. I promise.
 * Play the Wikipedia Game
 * Read about how to make your first article (Especially if that's why you're in an uphill battle in the first place.)
 * and then check out our insanely long lists of requested and missing articles.
 * Read the editor's index and familiarize yourself with policies.
 * Try answering questions on the Help desk or New user help page, once you're familiar with policy, to strengthen your understanding and help other editors.
 * After several additional months of experience, consider whether you want to renew the proposal in a way more likely to succeed; after all, Consensus can change.


 * Find another wiki to edit on. Wikipedia cannot be all things to all people, nor does Wikipedia try to be. There are thousands of other public wikis, each catering to different interests, and having editorial policies different from Wikipedia's. There is probably a wiki filled with people who think like you do! If not, then you can start your own.

What NOT to do in an uphill battle

 * Blanket revert any change you disagree with
 * Continue to waste your time editing the same way on the same topic. You could be so incredibly right that people would have to be idiots to disbelieve you, but that won't keep you from consequences.
 * Climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. That will just annoy people even more.
 * Insist everyone else is wrong. This goes doubly for administrators. They were trusted by the community, so they usually know what they're doing.