Wikipedia has seen some bitter disputes. It is easy to get into
disputes online, especially as being online can enable
near-immediate responses – reactions – but please remember that we
are all here for more or less the same reason and that there is a
person at the other end of your conversation. Flame wars are
counter-productive and make Wikipedia a less pleasant project for
everyone.
Here is a short list of tips from experienced contributors:
If someone disagrees with you, make sure you try to understand why.
Take the time and effort to explain why you think your suggestion
or suggestions might be preferable.
Don't label, give names or even disparage people or their edits;
assume good faith for as long as possible. Terms such as "racist",
"fascist", "moron" etc enrage people and make them defensive. When
this happens, productive discussion becomes very difficult.
Take it slow. There is no time limit for a discussion. If you're
angry, take time out instead of posting or editing. Come back in a
day or a week. You might find that someone else has made the change
or comment you wanted for you.
Keep in mind that raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than
the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Text
comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection or body
language. It is easy to misjudge the mood and intention of the
person who wrote it, all the more because when two people are at
loggerheads, it is often because they are operating under very
different assumptions and/or aren't communicating well with each
other. In responding, make it clear as to what you are responding;
paraphrasing or stating how you interpreted someone's comments is
usually more effective than simply quoting them. Furthermore,
qualify your interpretation with a remark such as "as you seem to
be saying" or "as I understand you" to acknowledge that you are
making an interpretation. Even if you doubt you have misunderstood
a person, it is still possible that you may have done so. Even if
you feel sure that someone is absolutely "wrong" about something,
it is polite to suggest that you may have misinterpreted their
view.
Assume the best about people whenever possible; assume good faith.
Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of
openness. This suggests that most people who visit do want to help
and do succeed in trying to do so.
Be prepared to apologise. In the heat of the moment we sometimes
say things that were better left unsaid; the least we can then do
is make amends.
Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you
amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful
in what you might be about to remove. Almost everyone – including
you – has something useful to say. Deletion upsets people and makes
them feel they have wasted their time; at the very least leave some
indication of your rationale in an edit summary, if not in an entry
on a Talk page or in a message to a user or users you think might
be perturbed by your action.
Sometimes you just need to walk away. There are over a thousand
administrators here and countless numbers of users who can take
over for you. Do not let an edit war supersede your personal
Wikipedia time. Take a time out from an edit war that gets too hot;
work on other articles, or take a break from Wikipedia in
general.
Please, please, please don't be a dick. Think about whether each
action is going to make things better or worse. If an action might
make things worse, give active consideration to not doing it.
