Wikipedia:Don't Feed the Divas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. |
 |
This page in a nutshell: Divas often storm off the project when they don't get their way - let them go. |
Contents |
[edit] What is a Wikipedia Diva?
A Wikipedia diva is a long time user who believes he is more important than other editors, and requires regular validation of that belief. Validation is obtained by storming off the project in a huff — a "retirement" or "Wikibreak" accompanied by a long diatribe against whatever petty issue drove them away this time.
Invariably, this diatribe attracts a flood of "please don't go" messages, along with plenty of support for the diva's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the diva gets exactly what he craves — validation and support — and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict.
[edit] Signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia Diva
The following are telltale signs that you are dealing with a Wikipedia Diva:
- Argumentative in petty disputes – there is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right.
- Often cite their edit counts in disputes – divas want others to think they are indispensable to the project, therefore they will frequently cite their own value to the project. In citing their own value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.
- Excessive self promotion – divas often have elaborate user pages which tout their contributions.
- Frequent threats to leave – this is the diva's primary weapon, and they use it often. They retire often, but never stay away for more than a few days.
[edit] How to deal with a Wikipedia Diva
Like trolls, divas crave attention, but whereas a troll is primarily destructive, divas appear to be productive contributors to the project — at least during times when they aren't storming off in a huff.
But unlike other productive contributors, divas use their productive contribution history as a weapon against other editors. For divas, positive contribution is not an end unto itself, but rather a means of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes — they can trade in some of their stored clout to get their way in disputes with lesser editors. This clout also gains them much needed validation during their frequent "retirements".
The best way to deal with divas is to ignore their tantrums. When a diva storms off, let them go. If you beg them to stay, you perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing that they will storm off again in a few months.
If you simply wish them well and let them leave, they will almost certainly come back, but with a better attitude. The diva who doesn't get validation will quickly realize that he is not more important than any other editor; that one single editor cannot break a project of such magnitude.
In some cases, the diva will stay retired, but the loss will be quickly filled by other editors who are not so high maintenance; editors for whom the goal is not self promotion and validation, but rather improvement of the project.
