Wikipedia:Teachable moments
 | 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. |
Every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment edit
It is best for the project if we approach every good faith question, every good faith disagreement, as a teachable moment. The wikipedia has no training course. All volunteers learn as we go. The wikipedia's policies are complicated, and sometimes they are vague, ambiguous, or even seem to contradict other policies. We also rely on long-established conventions, which require experience, and sound judgement, to interpret and apply. Finally, both our policies, and our conventions, are undergoing a slow evolution, meaning no single individual can expect to be fully able to interpret how all policies and conventions apply to a particular situation, at any particular time.
Benefit of taking the time to explain edit
One of the surprising things an experienced person will occasionally find, when they approach a seemingly naive good faith question, from someone they regard as less experienced, is that, during the process of giving a good faith answer, they will see unexpected complications in the question, so that they end up actually changing their mind.
We are all fallible here. We are all capable of human error. Even the most experienced of us can make mistakes, particularly if we are tired or distracted. Even the most experienced of us can have some wrinkle of policy we misunderstood, when we were new here, and which we still misunderstand, years later.
Efficiency is not a valid rationale for incivility edit
Some contributors have little patience for explaining themselves, claiming that, while they could explain themselves, doing so would interfere with their efficiency. In the computing industry, or in other areas of human endeavour, not staffed by volunteers, upper management may think it makes sense to authorize senior people to ignore the questions from more junior people. They can count on those junior people showing up to work the next day, even if their questions and concerns are ignored, because their motivation is their salary. Here on the WMF projects our good faith volunteers motivations are the feeling they are doing a good job, and the feeling their efforts to do a good job are appreciated.
The failure of our contributors who consider themselves to be our most experienced, to be civil to those they consider less experienced than themselves is an indulgence we just can't afford. Personal "efficiency" be damned.
We can't afford to be setting a bad example to newcomers, that incivility, and an unwillingness to explain what we are doing is OK.
We can't afford to drive away good faith newcomers, by telling them they don't understand our policies, without helping them understand those policies. And finally, this can't be repeated this enough, it doesn't matter how experienced we are, any of us might find, during the course of offering one answer to a good faith question, that we realize we have been wrong, all along.