Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-10-02/Opinion
Some disputes aren't worth it
I talk to curious outsiders here and there about the kind of drama that happens on Wikipedia. They always correctly guess that there's drama over contentious topics, like American politics or the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. They're generally also not surprised when they hear that interpersonal drama and grudges can happen when opposing personalities just find themselves in the same place at the wrong time. But they're always surprised and amused to find out that we have a storied history of serious drama and conflict over things that are objectively silly, like whether the 'i' in Star Trek Into Darkness is capitalized;[a] precisely which dash to use in a given context; and whether or not various tiny categories for articles should exist.
These discussions and others like them have two things in common: (1) the end result of the conflict means little to nothing to readers, and (2) they have the potential to end wikicareers. These disputes are not worth the trouble they cause. If you see one of these disputes – or worse yet, find yourself falling into one of them – avoid getting sucked in at all costs. (But maybe let an admin know if there aren't enough eyes on a nasty situation.)
The problem
I'm not even remotely the first person to notice that Wikipedians have a higher-than-average rate of traits that correlate heavily with mid- to high-functioning autism. This project is a limitless sandbox for correcting other people and indulging your special interest – with a reasonably low barrier to entry and a huge audience – so we really self-select for those traits. Unfortunately, those traits tend to correlate heavily with other traits associated with autism, ones that aren't as good for a collaborative project. People who like making corrections and improvements tend to have a very particular way they think things should be, and sometimes aren't receptive to alternative styles – even very small changes can cause a kind of anguish. We're hardwired more for assessing details than the big picture, so it's no surprise that some editors really care about minutia to the point where it can make collaboration difficult. We're not optimized for assessing unfamiliar social situations or subtext, and being properly considerate of others' feelings can be something we take a little longer to learn. Text also removes a lot of the subtext that we think we're expressing, making miscommunications even easier. Combine that with a model where decisions are made by talking (optimistically speaking), and you wind up with completely insignificant disputes being blown way out of proportion and attracting lots of community interest, to the point where uninvolved, experienced users have to divert their attention towards cleaning it up so that the project can move on.
If these disputes basically only involved single-purpose accounts, that'd be one thing. It'd be a time sink, sure, but it'd mostly be a honeypot for people who wouldn't be productive otherwise. But over the years, Wikipedia has lost incredibly talented and prolific contributors to stupid disputes, either because they got discouraged or because they couldn't behave themselves. No one is irreplaceable – the project fills the void sooner or later – but the loss of a contributor is still a temporary blow at least, especially in undertrafficked niches. These silly disputes do real harm to the community – we lose good editors and good editor-hours trying to settle what can be huge amounts of controversy over a tiny change. If you find yourself in one of these controversies, consider whether this is the best thing you can be doing for the project.
What to do
When to walk away
When there's nothing to be gained from arguing or escalating, the best thing you can to is to just drop the stick. I'd encourage this wherever possible. The problem with that advice, though, is that dropping the stick can be really, really hard. These disputes become much harder to defuse when both sides feel like the other's conduct has been hurtful or unfair; walking away can feel like surrendering to a bully. It's a little humiliating, and it leaves that person free to control their fiefdom, intimidating whoever else might challenge them. I get it, I really do.
The best answer I have is eventualism: the project rights itself at some point down the road. Bullies leave, either on good terms or not; the right answer comes through with enough discussion from cooler heads. These things will probably happen with or without your involvement. It might be a short-term loss to walk away, but over time, the track record buildup forces a reckoning – the arc of the project is long, but it bends against unblockables.
When to escalate
Sometimes, though, the opportunity falls right in your lap – a bully is obviously, nakedly breaking conduct policies in front of you, ignoring every warning and off-ramp. If you know someone's betting the bank on a crappy hand, and you know everyone else can see it, calling their bluff can end up doing good for the project. Escalating conflict isn't fun, and it can be very, very risky if you don't know what you're doing. ANI has no shortage of overconfident filers who are in for a nasty surprise.
But escalating doesn't always mean going right to ANI. Asking an admin to take a look is often enough to deal with a bad situation. If they seem sympathetic to you, but aren't able to deëscalate, that's where ANI can be most helpful – ANI watchers appreciate it when someone tries to deëscalate first, and when someone they trust is on your side. If the conduct is egregious enough, ANI can be the first stop. If you're absolutely sure that escalating is the right move and you don't have another way to address that behavioral problem, it can be worth it, but overall, I would really encourage trying to deescalate as much as possible, up to and including just finding something else to do.
Notes
- ^ Mainspace summary courtesy of yours truly :)
Discuss this story
One could say the same about ageing or simply losing or finding other interests. That we notice bullies leaving, for whatever reason, doesn't mean there's no point in doing something about bullies, that "the universe" will deal with that problem eventually. Leaving things to natural attrition is not likely to see an overall reduction in bullies, because there's a new one born every minute, and the existence of unchecked bullying self-selects for more to join and dig in (MOS being a fine example).
I agree at an individual level, you have to decide "if I'm the only one making a fuss about X" then you are unlikely to be successful on a community/consensus project. So maybe it is the right choice, individually, to let something go, and leave it for others. But ultimately, someone has to make a stand and risk attack from the bully's friends for doing so. Those with "cooler heads" invariably don't change the world. They may well be useful in discussions, but change needs passion. In my experience, bullies were shoved out or encouraged to leave because someone got very upset one day. They did not have a cool head. It just happened that on that day, their complaint found a receptive audience. -- Colin°Talk 11:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]