Here are my observations of different underlying philosophies of Wikipedia which may underlie conflicts. People with different views on these spectrums may be stuck in a conflict which is actually a meta-conflict.

Please feel free to add comments or content to the bottom of this page, but please do not apply edits before the section #Contributed material.

User:VeryVerily's version[edit]

Disclaimer: This is just me rambling.

The first of these continua employ standard Wiki terms. The others I just made up.

Eventualism vs. immediatism[edit]

Extreme immediatism[edit]

• The key is to make Wikipedia a useful and reliable Internet resource as of now.

• Any edit which is problematic should be reverted on sight; there is no time to fix it while live.

• New ideas for changes should be developed in a sandbox.

Moderate immediatism[edit]

• Articles should be in as good condition as possible when they are live.

• Dispute notices should be avoided unless there's no clear "right" version to post in interim.

• Reverting poor writing and unbalanced coverage is appropriate. Cleaning it up would be too tricky and take too long.

• Sandboxes are most geared towards proposed major edits.

Moderate eventualism[edit]

• It is worth maintaining articles in good condition, but not to the extent it would stymie their organic growth through the Wiki process.

• Edits should only be reverted if they are unsalvageable or at least hard to salvage.

• Poor and biased writing should be addressed, but unless there is no content should not simply be erased.

Extreme eventualism[edit]

• The process of free, continuous editing will in the long run make articles better and better.

• Only vandalism should be reverted. Anyone who makes an edit has something to say which should be respected.

• Poor and biased writing and misinformation will be corrected in due time. Relax.

Statusquoism[edit]

Deliberately not in continuum order to order concepts.

Moderate statusquoism[edit]

• The state an article has been in for some length of time is the benchmark.

• Edits which add controversial material should be reverted until justified in Talk.

Moderate anti-statusquoism[edit]

• Edits should not be reverted unless they are truly just troublesome.

• Poor writing is not a problem; later editors will fix it up.

• If an edit is so controversial that it should be reverted, an explanation should be given on Talk so the author can respond.

Extreme anti-statusquoism[edit]

• Edits should not be reverted unless they are basically vandalism.

• Poor writing, biased coverage, and questionable information is no problem; in time, later editors will fix this up.

• Similar to eventualism.

Extreme statusquoism[edit]

• An article should not be altered in any potentially controversial way without prior justification.

• The removal of controversial content, say pending fact-checking or discussion, should be reverted until justified in Talk and agreed upon.

• The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to make a change. Unless they're reverting.

Communityism vs. encylopedianism[edit]

Communityism[edit]

• Wikipedia should be made a welcoming place for newcomers who wish to participate.

• Actions which might be seen as rude and disrespectful to others should be avoided, even if avoiding them temporarily negatively affects the content.

• Personal attacks should not be tolerated.

Encyclopedism[edit]

• The sole purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia; social interaction is a byproduct of no importance.

• Treating people respectfully and being nice to newbies is only desirable inasmuch as it encourages contribution.

• Personal attacks are no big deal. Indeed, it is hard to say they're bad at all if it makes an editor who is wrong back off.

Authorism vs. anti-authorism[edit]

Authorism[edit]

• Articles, or sections of article, often have a distinguished "main author" who is primarily the writer of the article.

• The original author should be regarded as having more clout than others in how it should be organized and flow.

• While major changes by non-authors should require justification, the original author should feel entitled to reorganize his own prose.

• An article may require inquiry as to "original intent" from the author before changes are made.

Anti-authorism[edit]

(I'd like a punchier name for this. How about communalism?)

• There is no author for articles. Although one person may seed an article, each one is a community effort.

• Once an article text has been submitted, the submitter has no special privileges vis-a-vis future edits to that text.

• There is no "original intent" other than what is in the text and perhaps notes on the discussion page.

Rehabilism vs. anti-rehabilism[edit]

Sketchy

Anti-rehabilism[edit]

• Trolls and other problem users and should be banned and done with.

• A former troll has a lot to prove if they want to ever be allowed to contribute again.

• Don't feed the trolls.

Rehabilism[edit]

• Every editor, even a vandal, is a potential contributor.

• Every opportunity should be extended to a former troll for rehabilitation.

• Meatball:AssumeGoodFaith. Give the benefit of the doubt.

• The cost of fighting a troll is higher than fixing whatever trouble the troll causes.

Edit warring[edit]

Wholly lacking titles here.

WikiPacifism[edit]

• Edit wars considered harmful. They are also childish and pointless.

• Edit wars poison the page history, flood recent changes, and disrupt other editors.

• A responsible user should walk away from a persistent reverter. Let others handle it.

Not considered harmful[edit]

• Edit wars are part of the editorial process.

• The damage from a war now and then is minimal and greatly overstated.

• Repeatedly reverting a damaging edit is wholly appropriate.

Adminship[edit]

Who should become an admin. To be completed.

Contributed material[edit]

Material appearing after this section should not be construed as being endorsed by VeryVerily.

Communityism vs. encylopedianism[edit]

Communityism[edit]

• Wikipedia should be made a welcoming place for newcomers who wish to participate.
• Actions which might be seen as rude and disrespectful to others should be avoided, even if avoiding them temporarily negatively affects the content.
• Personal attacks should not be tolerated.
• All articles should reflect the consensus point of view of the community.
  • No, I don't think this fits the communityism philosophy which is accepting and open to other view points rather than imposing the consensus will on minorities. Community is finding a way to live together, not about homgeneity.--Silverback 07:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) -- hmmm, sometimes logins don't stick and I have to put in username by hand.
    • Fair enough. It's hard for us to figure out what the actual viewpoints of all these factions are; we are probably best to back off and let communityists themselves define their views. Most of these distinctions are just straw men right now.

Encyclopedism[edit]

• The sole purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia; social interaction is a byproduct which should not compromise this goal.
• Treating people respectfully and being nice to newbies is desirable inasmuch as it encourages contributions and diversity of opinions, and avoids groupthink.
• Personal attacks are no big deal. Indeed, it is hard to say they're bad at all if it makes an editor who is wrong back off.
• There is no such thing as a "Wikipedia community". A community is a group of people sharing bodily risk, and social club concerns or annoyances are very petty compared to real-world political problems.

Sysopism vs. Rehabilism vs. Politicism[edit]

Sketchy

Sysopism[edit]

• Trolls and other problem users and should be banned and done with.

• A former troll has a lot to prove if they want to ever be allowed to contribute again.

• Don't feed the trolls.

Rehabilism[edit]

• Every editor, even vandals, is a potential contributor.

• Every opportunity should be extended for a former troll to rehabilitate themselves.

• Meatball:AssumeGoodFaith. Give the benefit of the doubt.

• The cost of fighting a troll is higher than fixing whatever trouble they cause.

Politicism[edit]

• "Troll" and "problem user" are factionally defined terms at best. One person's valuable editor is another one's POV-pusher.

• As Wikipedia becomes more and more influential, we can expect constantly renewing political disputes: this simply can't be avoided. Excluding contributors for political reasons would undermine Wikipedia's claim to neutrality.

• Engage users in conflict by using the political virtues, and assess behaviour by these standards. Try to find "troll bridges" where opposing factions can work together. Be troll-friendly.

Edit warring[edit]

Wholly lacking titles here.

WikiPacifism[edit]

• Edit wars considered harmful. They are also childish and pointless.
• Edit wars poison the page history, flood recent changes, and disrupt other editors.
• A responsible user should walk away from a persistent reverter. Let others handle it.

Not considered harmful[edit]

• Wikipedia is a m:battlefield of ideas; edit wars are part of the editorial process.
• The damage from a war now and then is minimal and greatly overstated.
• Repeatedly reverting a damaging edit is wholly appropriate.

Neutrality[edit]

This section was added by Charles Stewart and The Cunctator.

Basic skill[edit]

• Cultivating the habit of always writing from a NPOV in all wikipedia editing is a skill that is not difficult to acquire.
• NPOV editing does not ever substantially conflict with other editing goals, and should never be compromised.
• Provided all the relevant facts are available, it is not difficult to tell if writing is POV.

Elusive virtue[edit]

• Composing NPOV text on contentious texts can be deeply difficult, requiring introspection and testing one's honesty with oneself.
• Writing from a NPOV stance can conflict fundamentally with comprehensiveness, conciseness and freshness of writing, and, though of great value, sometimes it is best sacrificed to promote other editing good.
• Facts can only be grasped from a POV; everyone has blindspots with respect to their own prejudices.

Unattainable absolute[edit]

• A neutral point of view requires omniscience and omnipresence. No-one has that.
• The comprehensive whole of all Wikipedia can be said to approach a neutral point of view as it becomes more comprehensive and includes more factual information. A single entry can only be said to have a neutral point of view assuming the limitations of the subject (which is not a neutral act).
• "NPOV" as used on Wikipedia does not mean "neutral point of view". It's shorthand for a particular style of writing which avoids authoritative statements and is highly contextual, particularly temporally. "NPOV" writing often ages poorly.

Factions[edit]

Factionalism[edit]

To be completed.

Antifactionalism[edit]

To be completed.