User:Jaredscribe/Content disputes

Deprecated diatribes to rework someday/maybe

I Will Sing of the Contributor and His Content Disputes

Science and art are the intellectual virtues, and concurring with Aristotle in this proposition, therefore scientia virumque cano, and Virgil be forgotten.

When scholarly editors are managing articles, dubious and uncited entries will receive collaboration from a third party who is willing to research. Bold-Refine is the ideal collaborative editing cycle. Else the senior and respondent editor will use dialectic (todo), by giving cause for reversion in the edit summary and asking for either a clarified re-entry, or else justification in the 2R stage. If the respondent doesn't give cause, his reversion is not scholarly, but merely WP:Tendentious editing in the service of ignorance or laziness, and he will often accuse you of the very tendentiousness and incivility that he practices. It may be a passive and advanced form of trolling, where trolls have taken over articles and suceeded in becoming managers and bureaucrats. (this does occur, sadly, but don't automatically assume it). WP:Assume good faith (todo) incompetence, if necessary.

• Many more, too many to list. Rather than becoming a troll, a sockpuppet, or an administrator, or giving up in despair, I moved on from where I wasn't wanted. I learned how to win my disputes, and then started consistently winning. And the whole encyclopedia with me, therefore I suggest you learn how to do the same. See the history pages of the articles on my "Resume", above.
  • Occasionally, some content disputes has gone to talk. And I will try to list some these here, when I get around to it.

Moral of the story: Disputation and dialectic are a necessary part of this project, but in a successful "content dispute", both and all parties are focused on seeking knowledge, not on winning or losing. Putting our own pride and privelege aside, we seek knowledge in humility, and the winner is the encyclopedia and everyone who edits and reads it. The "contributor" is justified or corrected, the "editor" withdraws or better imroves on the first draft, but no one "wins or loses". The managing "editor" also benefits from having been taught a lesson. I will not humiliate any of my dialectical partners in a scholarly content dispute, I value them. I list these disputes in order to demonstrate how the encyclopedia can be changed for the better, because some of these patterns repeat.

Rather than war with the WP:WikiElves and WP:WikiKnights, young newbie editor, become a WP:WikiHobbit and go for a walk with the WP:WikiDwarfs and learn something.

I will sing of the Writer and His WikiWars

Arma virumque cano (todo)? On second thoughts, lets not. "The Editor" is overrated on Wikipedia. "The Man" is overrated by Virgil. The poets are liars, and the Coliseum is just a stupid tourist-trap. The "Love of War" is for ignoramuses, bullies, and the dead. I am here to research, write, and contribute, and I am a man of peace. Nevertheless, war is sometimes necessary. And when it is, "the writer" must learn to contend.

• Spanish–American_War_Soldier's_Monument. I'm declaring victory in this edit-war, and the encyclopedia is now better for it. I wish the revert warriors would learn from this please WP:PRESERVE, and WP:DONTBITE next time, so that we can avoid this kind of unnecessary conflict.
  • Talk:Spanish–American_War_Soldier's_Monument
• a few others, that I will list later when I have time.

Moral of the story: When possible have "content disputes" rather than "edit wars", and while reverting, engage dialectic in your edit summaries. However, there are ignoramuses here who won't explain and who merely revert. It is sometimes necesssary to fight them.

I don't always fight wikiwar, but when I do, I prefer to win.