Guide to Wikipolitics
editOr, how to win the game. A completely unofficial guide. This is not approved by anyone, and is unlikely to be the opinion of most wikipedia editors etc etc. But, I think, this is a fair analysis of the state of the system, and how best to take advantage. In handy bullet point format.
- Make sure that you are fighting the right war. In general, good triumphs in wikipedia. Make sure that you are in here for the right intentions - that is, to improve the encyclopedia by adding relevant information, instead of opinions. Breathe in, and try to think about what you are doing. Good intentions aren't everything, but they mean a lot.
- Avoid revert wars. All revert wars you are in should be over in a day or two. If anything starts taking longer, something has gone wrong, and it's time to reanalyse what is going wrong. Any longer, and you aren't achieving anything except making yourself look immature. So stop. When a page gets protected, then game over, everyone loses.
- Follow the intent of rules. The reality of enforcement in wikipedia is that rules get enforced only when people notice and complain. Certain rules, like NPOV, are very easily noticed. Certain other rules are bendable. If you are violating a rule, it generally does not matter if your violation is structured so as to not contradict the intent of the rule. Do not be an asshole, because being an asshole will lead people to search for small rules that you may have broken and use it to justify their attacks. The most common rule that is broken is the vanity page rule. Whatever the rule says, breaking it is OK if all you are doing is fixing spelling errors, or correcting mistakes of fact. If your edit is something that no one in the right mind would revert after realising that you wrote it, then no one cares.
- I repeat, do not be an asshole. Being an asshole includes foul language, insults, incivility, being anal about rule infractions, being patronising, assuming bad faith, repeating reverts etc...
- Try to nail down points of dispute clearly, and do dual points of view. In disputes, don't enter into a debate about the subject itself - that just makes you more POV-laden. Instead, restrict yourself into how these issues affect the article itself. If an issue is about wording that may prejudice opinion, write out the full statement with all qualifers instead, to be something that is unambiguious and full. Wikipedia is not paper, and having more stuff usually resolves POV issues based on allegations of ommission or incorrect focus. Instead of removing criticism, add responses to the criticism.
- If things go hot, escalate. Read up on mediation and RFC procedures, and use them. Get a third point of view. Moan on IRC, and relevant Admin talkpages. They might complain, but it gets results. If you are in the right, expanding the sphere of editorship usually helps.