Principles of collaboration

Unlike the principles on which Wikipedia is written , the principles of communication (more precisely, the principles of interaction of the authors) are much more debatable.



For a start, about communicating readers with writers. In principle, this opportunity was added “with a scratch” and no one uses it especially. The principle is simple: you see the problem, correct the problem. To write somewhere so that “someone” corrected it ... In principle, each article on the right has a “report error”. But the question is: who to tell? And why should this “someone” move to correct a mistake? This mechanism is weak, almost not working. Actually, on it communication of readers with writers comes to an end. Since any reader can become a writer by pressing two buttons, all real interaction (on complex issues) occurs between the authors, or, in Wikipedia terminology, the participants.



What is the purpose of editing articles in Wikipedia? With one, only: that Wikipedia could be written. Or, from a pragmatic one, for someone to sit and write content for the site for free. (seo'shnika's dream). Accordingly, the rules should thus determine the behavior of the participants, so that they provide record yields to create conditions for comfortable collaboration on articles.



The word "joint", in this case, is very important. Because the principle of Wikipedia is neutrality of presentation. And it can be achieved either on very and very “peaceful” topics (for example, check valves in pipelines, or horn antennas ), or (and this is very important, as it concerns conflict articles) by searching for such content of the article, which would be neutral.

')

Accordingly, the regulation of the participants' behavior is reduced to three aspects: the attitude of the participant and the article, the attitude of the participants with each other, and the behavior in a situation of conflict around the content of the article.



The first is completely understandable: spoiling articles is bad, writing articles is good, violating copyrights is bad, observing the style and language of presentation is good.



The most difficult begins in the second two aspects.



First, Wikipedia opens up editing to be able to write articles, rather than chat with anyone. Thus, communication for the sake of communication (aka "socialization") is for Wikipedia not only useless, but also harmful, as it distracts from articles. From here grows the first reason to ban swearing.



Secondly, Wikipedia should create a sufficiently comfortable working environment. There are two models for moderating discussions (I’m exaggerating a bit, but this is the essence): either everyone allows himself to express himself as he wants, or there are bans on rudeness / rudeness. The first model makes it possible, if necessary, to express itself harshly, roughly, and in essence. For example, it allows the following:



I believe that your article is a bullshit, and you are a schoolboy dropout; Only a schoolboy could make such a primitive mistake, and forget about the existence of boundary conditions, when building a spline.



Directly, in fact, with an explicit indication of the opponent in his place in this world. Of course, such an attack cannot remain unanswered, and in the course of the discussion about the contents of the article will be given something like this remark:

Before you call someone a dropout and a schoolboy you should ask who you are actually talking to. I have been teaching students for more than 10 years and I know perfectly well what I am writing about. But your qualification is doubtful to me, since you managed to make three mistakes in the previous answer

(any Internet participant can quite imagine a further conversation style).



For Wikipedia, a similar swearing (in itself) is neither cold nor hot. Well shit MORE two flamer. So what? The Internet can endure. However, in the course of this swearing, we have a problem: TWO participants interested in the content of the article are engaged in ... figuring out who the reproductive organ is more literate. Instead of writing an article. But this is already bad. Because the outcome of swearing will not be only two piles of poop on each side of the barricades, but also an unwritten article (and even worse, if this dispute creeps from the discussion to edit the article, then the article is not only written but spoiled by the flame participants with the aim of “revenge each other").



What happens if we "turn on" the rules of Wikipedia (about them in more detail below). Here is about the same dialogue, but within the framework of the Wikipedia format:

- An error in the article - the boundary conditions were not taken into account when constructing the spline

- This is not a spline, but a spline-like construction, it is used to calculate the behavior of a curve at a point, the boundary conditions are assumed to be insignificant and are related to infinity.

- But this is already an oriss, I don’t see anything in the source about reference to infinity, or about “spline-like”.

- Well, the textbook of Namek does not cover this question completely ... Here, I found it. Pupkin V.V. “Spline-like and boundary conditions”, 2002 Moscow, Scientific literature, describes this particular case.

- I still think that this approach is quite marginal, in fact, no one except Pupkin writes this.

- But is it in AI?

- Yes, but there is a conflict between the AI. I propose to put in the abstract "obvious", and put different approaches to the analysis and application of boundary conditions into a separate section (where both Nomirek and Pupkin are easy to state).

Tell me, what is the main difference between discussion number one and number two? The main difference is that the participants discuss the content of the article , not each other’s education / literacy. And the result of this work will be a detailed article in which different points of view will be presented in a form in which the reader can get acquainted with each of them, as well as see the general, in which the points of view converge.



To achieve this result, Wikipedia imposes the following severe restrictions on the communication of participants:

1. Rudeness, insults and rudeness are prohibited. Even if you got nasty, you have no right to be rude in response.
2. Go to the person is prohibited. Even if these are innocent sayings ( well, of course, of course, who besides you, my dear, can solve such a complex problem ).
   
   Communication outside the context of the discussion of articles, the development of Wikipedia and "debriefing" is prohibited (not as strictly as the first paragraphs, so to say, "not approved").
   
   Any debriefing (complaint about the actions of the participant) should be based on a well-developed argument, "notes in passing" are prohibited ( well, this vandal, well, what else can you expect from it ).
   
   
   
   
   
   Certainly, it seems very offensive "I should dance with this idiot and make polite curtsies that I spend my time" - but as practice shows, mutual (even if pulled by the ears) polite behavior leads to more constructive work than "constructive srach. " Because for one this “method expresses itself”, and for the other “blood insult”, after which there is no constructive left and it is necessary to punish the offender.
   
   
   
   The second, very important aspect is the assumption of good intentions . The most vile thing that can be in life is to prove that you have good intentions. Any excuses sound pitiful, any action or inaction is interpreted as evidence of malicious intent, and regular excuses still sound pitiful.
   
   
   
   Therefore, until the moment it becomes crystal clear that a participant performs actions NOT for Wikipedia (for example, walks through the pages and places links to his site, or appends to “Kolya - dumb” in a bunch of articles), good intentions should be assumed. Sometimes it is difficult. But - need.
   
   
   
   To me, my administration experience says that VERY much seemingly vandal edits were made of good intentions. But either the person did not know something, or he incorrectly assessed the consequences, or he was mistaken. If such a participant is attacked by “oh you are a villain” - he is offended. He wanted the best.
   
   
   
   Therefore, even if the participant’s actions are objectively bad, he must first say “don't do that”. And explain why. (and not to shy away from the discussion, because truth can also be on the “other side”). Only if this did not help, should we deal with formal force methods.
   
   
   
   (I will write about the ethics of administration separately, this is a very, very difficult question).
   
   
   
   The third aspect, which seems controversial to many people, is the thesis of equality of participants. Yes, a schoolboy CAN argue with a professor, and a professor MUST answer schoolchildren’s questions, even if it seems to a professor that a schoolboy is illiterate and carries nonsense. And yes, the student can prove his case by quoting a school textbook. And if a professor is too lazy to raise real literature and find a more authoritative source, then the student will be right, but the professor will not. This thesis is very offensive for professionals, but this rule is the only one that allows anyone to edit. The proof (reference to the AI) should be objective and not depend on the authority of the one who leads it.