Wikipedia:Dissent is not disloyalty
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page in a nutshell: Dissent is not disloyalty, but it is also not an excuse to be disruptive. |
Editors who express dissent about Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines may be accused of being disloyal or of not working to improve the encyclopedia. In discussions on or about Wikipedia, avoid trivializing others' opinions by attributing the difference of opinion to others' character flaws, immorality, trolling, or other wanton bad faith. Instead, try to recognize the fundamental philosophical differences underlying the disagreement, accept the validity of opinions other than your own, and discuss the issue rather than the participants.
When dealing with dissent, the following advice may help:
- Avoid no personal attacks, which are usually considered to be a form of incivility.
- In general, it is best to assume good faith.
- Remember, Wikipedia is not a battleground; discuss the issue, not the person.
- Remember, if an editor discusses a view, that does not necessarily mean they subscribe to such a view. Similarly, if an editor links to something, that does not necessarily mean that views expressed in that link reflect the opinions of the editors who linked to it.
- Avoid implying guilt by association. Editors are responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others.
- Avoid creating straw men.
Role of dissent
There are limitations to this, though. For example,
Another difference is that in many democracies, citizens are given a wide latitude to criticize specific government leaders, even to the point of using
In Wikipedia, the text of articles can be changed by the consensus of editors, even longstanding content that has been given
Constructive dissent
If a Wikipedian expresses dissent regarding policies or guidelines inappropriately, such as through disruption or personal attacks, they may be blocked or given other
- Right approach: Dissent on Wikipedia concerning policies and guidelines should be grounded in a sincere goal to improve the encyclopedia and its editing process, and all criticism should be constructive criticismwhich proposes concrete and actionable improvements. If your goal is not to improve Wikipedia, but rather to attack it, then a better forum for expressing your views would be a personal blog or another non-Wikipedia forum, such as a letter to a newspaper editor or any of the various websites critical of Wikipedia.
- Right place: Use the right place to express dissent. If you disagree with Wikipedia's policy on no original research, expressing this view on hundreds of article talk pages is not appropriate and could be viewed as disruptive behavior. The correct place to express your concerns with this policy would be the talk page of the policy itself.
- Right tone: Using inflammatory language and rhetoric is usually counterproductive. Express your views using polite and calm wording. Using "softer" wording such as "may" can work better than words like "should" or "must". all-caps text, all of which are typically taken as excessive displays of emotion and can even be confusing. Other editors are more likely to agree to a more nuanced proposal, especially when presented without hyperbole.
- Right proposal: Calling for the removal of a policy—which by definition has massive, project-wide consensus and would have massive, project-wide effects—is neither feasible nor strategic. Generally, editors are far more open to hearing proposals for more incremental modifications to a policy, or some type of very limited exception to the policy, than to radical changes. Policies and guidelines, just like community norms, may shift or deprecateover time, but rarely are they abruptly abandoned.
- Right speed: Avoid appeals to urgency and demands for "immediate action". While such rhetoric may work well at a political rally or a protest, on Wikipedia the wheels of change turn very slowly since the encyclopedia has a huge number of editors' views to take into account. As a result, even a minor modification to a policy or guideline may take a long time and lots of discussions on the talk page to achieve enough consensus to implement it.
- Right interaction: Build a dialogue with other editors; do not simply keep repeating the same statement. Although summaries or clarifications of previous points may be due, repeating the same argument without acknowledging the responses and criticisms to it can be seen as problematic behavior. Doing so gives other editors the impression that you aren't listeningor, worse, that you are intentionally trying to be disrupt the discussion. Moreover, mere repetition is generally not persuasive, since otherwise it would have probably been convincing the first time. When other editors suggest rewording your proposal, try to accommodate their views. If you keep making accommodations with other editors, then eventually a proposal with some degree of consensus may emerge.
So long as these elements characterize your criticisms, your dissent can help improve the encyclopedia. Although Wikipedia is not a democracy,