A forum contribution. See: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1846.0.html Here is a problem that has long stymied us (and people on other wikis). We spend our talk page time disagreeing, arguing, and instructing, often at great length. I think our time could be more gainfully spent by working creatively toward mutually agreeable solutions, rather than proving each other wrong. The more that our well-intentioned efforts are aimed at exposing the subtle mistakes of others, the more work we unwittingly create for each other: others of course feel impelled to prove us wrong, and on it goes. The ensuing back-and-forth is not really aimed at solving the underlying sentence wording and article titling problems. This seems grossly inefficient and unnecessary. I hope many of you agree with me here.
Here is how irrelevant disagreements break out. Citizen A does something controversial and, with every good intention, justifies the action on the talk page. Citizen B disagrees, and publicly rejects the action and its justification. Thereafter, A and B are locked in a long back-and-forth. Notice something subtle but important: what A and B are typically debating about is words that appear on the talk page, not necessarily in the article. Somebody writes something wrong, or even outrageous, on the talk page; "I can't let that stand," I think. I feel I can disprove it, and so I proceed to do so. The person I refute feels the same way. Hence the back-and-forth. Precisely why is that a problem? Because the purpose of talk pages is not to engage in random debate. It is to negotiate to agreement about how the text should read. The problem, clearly, is that even when people begin by justifying specific edits, the discussion tends to descend into more or less irrelevant debate. Now, irrelevant debate would not be a problem, except that we expect solutions to come out of it. A seems to think: "If only I can convince B of my position, then we can word the article as I prefer." But this is almost always wrong. As long as we aren't carefully focusing on the text, solutions won't appear, because debates tend to metastasize and worsen until one party just gives up. They aren't aimed at providing solutions. What's to be done? If we all were, magically perhaps, focused not on proving each other wrong, but instead proposing new, creative, and kind ways to resolve conflicts, we'd have far fewer conflicts and far higher productivity. So I propose that we, each of us, reconceive of talk pages: they are venues for discovering the best compromise solutions to problems of sentence wording and article titling, which problems we are all concerned to solve as quickly, creatively, and kindly as possible. Then we wouldn't fill up talk pages with 100K of argumentative text nearly as quickly. I don't think we'll ever entirely eliminate debate, but if we get enough people to agree with my idea here, we can sure cut down on a lot of useless debate. We can also make people feel more comfortable working together, and have fewer people leaving due to disagreements or their own irritating arguing style. Now in more specific terms, what should we do? (1) We should each check ourselves as we discuss things on talk pages. Ask yourself: "Am I arguing just because I want to prove an irrelevant point? Have I proposed a specific, reasonable solution to the problem of wording? Have I tried listening sympathetically to what my 'opponent' is saying, so that we can hammer out a workable solution?" (2) Spread this idea. Encourage others to think of talk pages more in these terms as well. If you notice someone arguing with you, or someone else, on a talk page about issues that are not strictly relevant to wording of article and title text, gently remind the person that more can be done on CZ, and everyone will be happier, if we focus exclusively and in kindness on seeking solutions to wording problems. (3) If this idea is well received, we can add it to <http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Talk_Pages> [[CZ:Talk Pages]] and perhaps also <http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:How_to_use_talk_pages> [[CZ:How to use talk pages]]. For idealistic reasons I won't bore you with, I don't propose that we make this into a requirement. But aren't there ultimately unsolvable problems, that can't be negotiated or compromised away? Surely there are cases where one party makes a specific proposal, and another party makes a contrary proposal, and neither will budge. But notice something very interesting. What I never observe happening is two parties trying to come to a compromise, only to discover that no compromise is possible, and then concluding with clarity, "I think the text should read ABC, and you think it should read XYZ. Let us find someone to resolve this dispute for us." Can you remember that ever happening? I don't think I can. When acrimonious disputes arise, it is often in spite of the fact that a rather easy compromise is possible; the parties insist on debating because they want to prove the other guy wrong, not in order to come to an actual solution. Recently we had a long, complicated debate only to discover that there was no practical disagreement after all. If there are any "unsolveable problems" among intelligent, well-meaning people, I think they must be very rare; then the solution is to ask the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Council to tackle them. What if the other side is just wrong because they are clueless, and any compromise would be unjustified? Of course, occasionally people will simply be unreasonable or uninformed. The present proposal does not explain how to deal with completely clueless people. But I think very few Citizens are completely clueless. I've noticed that we just don't appeal much to the totally clueless. If you are inclined to think that your opponent is "just wrong," please ask yourself: are either you or your opponent making any proposals about how to resolve your dispute? Or are you just arguing without any very clear purpose? Why not try to work toward agreement and compromise and leave aside pointless debate? Then, perhaps, you might be justified in concluding that the other side is just utterly unreasonable. Please comment at <http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1846.0.html> http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1846.0.html --Larry
_______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
