User:Volunteer Marek/Edit warring is good for you

Edit warring is good for you (and for Wikipedia)

Ok, I don’t mean that literally – I just wanted a heretical headline. What I mean is that some edit warring is good. To understand this we need to look at the encyclopedia from two very different points of view; that of the "bureaucratic administrator" and that of the "content creating drone" (i.e. non-admin shmoe)

If you’re an administrator then edit warring is like the Worst. Thing. Ever. Why? Well, if a particular article is non-stable then sooner or later somebody’s gonna have to deal with it. Reports will be filed. People will whine. Controversial decisions will have to be made. Somebody somewhere will end up pissed off and will show up the next time you go up for recall, or try to get CheckUser, or just endeavor to annoy you in general. Drama will ensue!!!. In other words, if you’re an administrator and there’s edit warring going on, you might actually have to get off your ass and do some of the things that administrators are supposed to do (warning: unintentional comedy). Which is "work". And nobody likes "work". Come on, be honest, if you were an administrator you’d hate dealing with this crap too!

But if you’re the little guy who actually writes and edits articles and content, then edit warring … well, it’s not really that big of a deal. It’s just something that happens along the way, as natural as the fact that if you get enough people in the room, at least two of them will find an excuse to disagree. What you care about, if you’re a content creating editor, is not whether some article is “stable” but rather what the actual … content of the article ends up being. Like, you know, what's in the actual encyclopedia.

So bureaucratic administrators and content creating editors have different perspectives on this. The first get their panties in a twist over procedures while the latter’s underwear gets all bunched up over outcomes. That’s like the history of the world and I think some Greek philosopher dude had something to say about this and how these two worldviews just will never be reconciled.

Ok, ok, but how is edit warring good for Wikipedia? Or for you, yourself, and your POV pushing battle ground having self? Well… think of what would happen if nobody ever reverted your sorry ass. This is one of those things that sound good in theory, but deep down in your BFG heart you know it wouldn’t work well in practice. You’d get lazy, sloppy and stupid. You’d end up writing crappy articles and crappy content, simply because you could get away with it.

Some of the best articles on Wikipedia have gone through some serious edit wars. And they are better for it. An edit war – having somebody revert, challenge and fight you every inch, every word of an article – forces you to go to the sources. To do some real research. Inline cite every single word. Think about your own POV and confront it. Spend time at the library and even, Monkeys forbid!, sometimes change your mind. In other words, do what content creating editors are actually suppose to do! Just like bureaucratic admins are supposed to take their time with filed reports, consider the merits, learn something about the subject area and make controversial decisions (it’s why they be given the toolz and the power over the rest of us after all) and have the guts to take a position. Content creating editors are supposed to find reliable sources for every single piece of text they write.

And edit warring is exactly the competitive process which makes sure that they do that.