Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page. |
Wikipedia is not therapy. If a user has behavior problems which result in disruption of the collective work of creating a useful reference, then their participation in Wikipedia may be restricted or banned entirely. This should not be done without patiently discussing any problems with the user, but if the behavior is not controlled, ultimately the project will be protected by restricting the user's participation in the project.
Contents |
[edit] Misuse of the phrase
It is grossly inappropriate to use the phrase "Wikipedia is not therapy" to imply that another user isn't stable enough to edit. If another user is having trouble the solution is to offer advice, gentle correction, and, if necessary, use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. If those actions are so ineffective that serious disruption continues to result from the problem user's efforts, it is only then that, accepting our limitations at changing behavior or policing it, an admission must be made that we are not equipped to engage in extended efforts to change or improve someone's behavior.
[edit] Therapeutic effects
As a collaborative project creating reference works, Wikipedia and its associated projects offer opportunities for users to practice collaborative constructive work. While not intended as therapy, this work may have therapeutic and rehabilitative effects. Anyone who is able to benefit from this is very welcome.
[edit] Unintended consequences
Overly focused editing on one or a group of subject related topics can be very detrimental to the collaborative edit process, and not infrequently lead to resentments, alienation of others, and eventually spills over into overt incivility. The very undesirable antithesis of therapeutic benefits! Gung ho editing on a new article is encouraged, but as more editors make contributions to the page, the pace of editing needs be slowed and spread out in time, allowing for real life time demands on useful and not infrequently, expert contributors.
As the wikipedia project is now very well stocked in articles, quality is and must be the new watchword on maturing articles. For many of those, for example many articles involving 'fuzzy subjects' where experimental evidence is impossible or at least hard to come by, expert involvement is desperately desired and needed. This requires a sensitivity to the time impact on courtesy, and an expansion of WP:CIV to beyond the word and into the spirit behind civility—in this case, having the courtesy to recognize one's impact on another's time, and recognition that pushing the pace too fast in a collaborative process manned by volunteers top to bottom, is itself a discourtesy that must be avoided as much as possible.
Any editor frequently focusing their efforts on a narrow group of articles is basically asking to be in conflict very soon if you edit everyday or nearly so. This tends to involve one's ego and tends to behavior more typical of ownership, and is a dangerous pitfall most good experienced editors have learned to avoid along the way. That way leads to conflicts for the ego knows how hard one has worked on that danged page. Best solution: Disconnect the ego by feeding it out smaller spoonfuls of satisfaction food on many more good edits on a larger group of articles.
Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, and subject to endless and merciless editing, but in a stable and maturing article where a group of editors is actively trying to work for a better result, even a small edit can be taken as controversial, point of view pushing, and be rushing a deliberative balanced better solution, by disrupting such discussion in that it forces the group to pay attention to the discordant edit, loosing the cohesion of the group and much if not all of the deliberative ambiance desirable when an article reaches mature nurturing. It is far better to recognize that with a work in progress, there is no real need or urgency to deal with a nagging annoyance or other imperfection today if it will offend or rush someone else. Wait for some consensus and edit elsewhere. There is much to be done. Make haste more slowly!
[edit] Rules and authority
Wikipedia's rules can be complicated and difficult to apply in practice. But Wikipedia:Assume good faith is a very helpful rule in that regard. If you have made a mistake, even a relatively serious one, rely on "assume good faith", apologize, and try not to repeat the mistake. Likewise, Wikipedia has a number of Administrators, some quite skilled, some not. Working it out with them may prove challenging, but in this environment little is at risk.
[edit] Considering other viewpoints
As Wikipedia:Neutral point of view mandates fair representation of all significant viewpoint regarding a subject, editing on Wikipedia offers an opportunity to practice considering opposing viewpoints regarding a subject. That however is not a license to push other editors on an article faster into a decision one favors, as that way lies edit warring and a ill-constructed article. Discuss such matters in depth, don't act out and attempt to force a viewpoint down others throats. Asking for a fair representation of a minority view is however, in the finest traditions of NPOV. Causing numerous reverts and counter reverts is WP:POINT and can bring down disciplinary action.
[edit] Playing well with others
As most of the content and policies of Wikipedia are worked out among users, Wikipedia offers the opportunity to practice the skills of courtesy, negotiation, and compromise that make graceful social life possible. If you are getting strong reactions from others, or worse, strong language, you are likely in severe need to take a large step back and reassess the matter. If you are perhaps doing things which lead to a complaint on WP:AN/I, it's a pretty certain sign your play skills need a tune up. Other's perceptions of you are their reality, as yours are your own. When a few or more differ with your reality, it's a pretty strong clue you need to adjust your thinking.
[edit] Getting back on the horse
If you have had trouble at Wikipedia in the past, for most users Wikipedia offers the chance to start over and try again; the only exception being users who have caused serious disruption which has been judged likely to continue if nothing is done.
[edit] Taking responsibility
Wikipedia readily promotes users who have taken responsibility. This offers an opportunity to practice administrative skills in a collaborative environment.
[edit] Compassion
As others will make mistakes from time to time or need help, your participation in Wikipedia offers opportunities to practice friendliness, and forgiveness.
[edit] Summary
In short, Wikipedia offers users the chance to practice being sensible, sane, and productive.
