Source of conflict: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Remember our mission and our goal |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
There are numerous sources of [[conflict]]s,
===Conflicts for domination===
* '''Conflicts for domination'''. Sometimes, we find ourselves fighting over who is on top of whom in the structure. These conflicts occur between individuals (''you do not own that article''), groups (''the so-called pro-palestinian and pro-israel biased groups of editors'') or even between communities with similar goals (''international wikipedias versus english one''. These kind of conflict are tough to solve because no one wants to be at the bottom, and few accept to share the top. Besides, some at the bottom want to move up, while those at the top want to stay at the top. **The conflict may be solved if:▼
▲
These kind of conflict are tough to solve because no one wants to be at the bottom, and few accept to share the top. Besides, some at the bottom want to move up, while those at the top want to stay at the top. **The conflict may be solved if:
**those at the top being willing to share power
**or one of the two parties leaving,
**or one party may accept being on the bottom,
**or both parties may recognize the superiority of the overarching goal -- to provide a high-quality encyclopedia. Remembering our mission and our goal can often make complex conflicts easier to handle.
=== Poorly informed newbies ===
Conflict may simply arise from newbies, who did not really understand the core principles of the project and may take actions which they would not have taken, had they been better informed. <br>
It is best to assume good faith from newbies, and take the time to explain slowly, nicely, and repeatedly if needed. <br>
Show the "correct" way by examples rather than explanations (for example, gently copyedit on of his articles in good form behind him) and consider letting the newbie making a few mistakes before mentionning them to him (to avoid him feeling too much pressured).
Also, some conflicts are long-term. As they proceed, participants develop a history of interaction and get to know each other very well. They know their common interests, as well as their meeting points for conflicts, and usually avoid them. New participants lack this experience, and are more likely to fall in in trap.<br>
It is best to find a way to preserve a previous conflict history and to provide new participants with that information. The information should be unbaised at best to encourage new participants to develop their own approach of the problem.
:for example, it is best that a new participant is warned upon entering a "frequently conflictual area" that a particular individual has a specific hot point to avoid pushing.
| |||