Wikipedia talk:Writing for the opponent

comment
10 bucks says you can't point to a concrete example of when this has ended an edit war in an instant. --66.188.143.140 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * --tjstrf talk 19:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is the creepiest thing I've ever seen. --69.129.127.252 22:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If many edited this way on controversial issues, many articles would be improved tremendously. That's my POV. MrMurph101 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename "Writing for the opponent"?
To assume another editor or a reader is an enemy does not assume good faith. Plus saying word enemy brings up visceral negative reaction making it more difficult. However, "opponent" makes it sound more like the intellectual battle editing wikipedia often is and is a more respectful term which is more likely to get people thinking in positive terms. Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales likes "writing for the opponent"
Last night got around to making a slightly altered version of the above comment on his talk page and got this response. So how do people feel about changing name of article and doing a search for other article uses to change it?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support change. Much better title. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support change. When I leave my "macho" at the door to the editing room, I am a much better editor. The words we use are important. War is never the answer. --Buster7 (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Opponent is similar to enemy, and I understand the motivation for changing the name as the current expression jars with the language in WP:CONSENSUS, but if we are going to change the name, then why go half way? Instead call it "writing from another point of view" or something similar. "writing from another point of view" has several advantages, it ties in with the name of NPOV policy, and it implies change is for the benefit of the author's own narrow perspective, as apposed to implying that it is a written for the benefit of an opponent. --PBS (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Opponent is MUCH milder than enemy. "Writing from another point of view" could be Any point of view. "Writing for the opponent" requires focus on the specific opposite point of view and asks that the editor "puts on the opponents moccassins". The benefit is the writers new perspective and potential growth as an editor.--Buster7 (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While part of me likes "writing from another POV" I also wonder if might be too hard to remember. (So many concepts so little time!) This one just makes people replace one word in a concept they are familiar with. Plus I agree with Buster7 above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: how about 'writing for the other side'? That would get the meaning of this page across, without having to use words like 'opponent' or 'enemy' which promote factionalism. Robofish (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or even, come to think of it, 'writing for both sides'. That is, after all, what this is all about. Robofish (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course the problem is there are so many sides and you may have for or five views in conflict! "Writing for opponents" is another phrase. People can be opponents without being hostile, as many are in sports, politics and debate. The concept of enemy assumes hostility. CarolMooreDC (talk)


 * So is there an objection to changing it to "writing for the opponent" and changing WP articles that link to it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggestion 2: How about "Describing (or "describe") the opposing POV"? There is no question that POV can be opposing, and unfortunately editors can also be in that position, but this places the focus on the POV rather than the editor. It also backs up our current description of the meaning of the term. We should all strive to understand the opposing POV well enough to describe it, and we should be willing to edit "across the table", so to speak (I picture a negotiation table), from editors who hold opposing POV. We should learn to disagree agreeably, and to ensure that NPOV is fulfilled by enabling the proper inclusion of information that we may find disagreeable, as long as it is properly sourced and framed. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Describing" actually is part of the first sentence, except "explaining" is used. Writing for the enemy is the process of explaining another person's point of view as clearly and fairly as you can, similar to devil's advocate. The intent is to satisfy the adherents and advocates of that perspective that you understand their claims and arguments. That there might be 2 or 3 different editors with different perspectives is also implicit. That could be made more explicit by changing "another person's point of view" to "other editors' points of view."
 * However, since Describing (or "describe") the opposing POV is less "punchy" than "writing for the opponent" - as well as brand new - changing name too much might confuse or annoy editors familiar with the old one.CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Catching up on things and hearing no new and/or strong objections will change title. Are you ready? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Brought up making this change at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view which has references in the policy text to this concept and hearing no dissent will finally proceed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support change, with a redirect to new title. Saw the note on WT:NPOV about this. Several thoughts: First off this is only an essay, though admittedly one that's become part of the repertoire of numerous users on the wiki at this stage of its development. Seems to me the title "Writing for the enemy" is, for most WP users, meant to be a bit of a hyperbolic metaphor, one with a bit of irony that doesn't necessarily imply that all opposing viewpoints are that of an enemy. As we've repeatedly seen on the wiki, some users are indeed enemies, sometimes literal enemies in real life--pick any article on a current military or grave political conflict and you'll almost always find editors with opposing POVs that fit any reasonable definition of the word "enemy". Somewhat more commonly, users with irreconcilable POVs are ideological enemies, again a reasonable definition of the word "enemy". For the rest of users who merely hold more civil disagreements in POV, it seems to me the bit of metaphor ought be understood to mean that even at the extremes of disagreement, it's an aspect of the ideal expression WP:NPOV. The title Writing for the opponent diminishes the strength of the metaphor significantly. .....Nonetheless, as noted above, a title like Writing for the opponent does more literally reflect a civil, good faith, intellectual battle. Plus, the word "opponent" doesn't necessarily exclude those situations where users are "enemies" in RL. Further, the proposed new title advocates an atmosphere of civility and AGF. On balance, I support the change. A quick note: If wiki history is any guide, implementing the change of title and/or part of its content will allow the change(s) to become exposed to more WP users as they link to this page from time to time in the normal course of their WP actions, thereby giving opportunity to the broader community to submit any criticisms not apparent in the discussion above. IMO, the proposer, CarolmooreDC, should at this stage in time feel free to go ahead and implement it. ...  Kenosis (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Add info on/encouragement to use Expand template?
A couple times when I knew there was a missing view but didn't have the knowledge, interest, time, etc. to add it, I'd put in this tag:  that would look like this:

This could be done by either a detail example like above or a link to Template_messages/Cleanup. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Its a good way to end an edit war for another reason
Its a good way to end an edit war for another reason - By learning to think like your "enemy" by practicing doing so, you can more readily change their mind using reason, and using facts they might be blinded to for some reason. WPEnemy (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)