User talk:Apostle12/sandbox

Ownership of articles

Hostile takeover

Sometimes an editor who is very competetive will try to solve ownership issues by substituting himself as the primary editor. This is not unlike a hostile takeover in the business world, where an individual or a company possesses sufficient capital to buy a controlling share of stock in the company to be taken over. "Capital" in this context consists of the willingness to overpower an existing primary editor, or multiple editors, gradually forcing them out as they tire of incessant conflict. "Survival of the most obnoxious" is a term that has been used to describe this process. In any case, the new primary editor is no less in violation of Wikipedia ownership policies than the former primary editor or multiple editors, and the only solution is to withdraw voluntarily.

Collaboration

Most case of ownership conflict could be avoided if the parties in question were to remember that intense conflict is often indicative of the potential for intense collaboration that would be much more productive for all parties concerned. A related topic would be a concept promoted by Karl Jung called "The Shadow."

Comments

• Hostile takeover section needs work and the collaboration section needs expansion. The statement, "Sometimes an editor who is very competetive will try to solve ownership issues by substituting himself as the primary editor," is too wordy and assumes he is knowingly trying to take over the article. This is flawed in several ways. First, we cannot gauge competitiveness in this venue, other than to say there is a race to improve the article. Second, FA writers will often come to an article where established editors are already camped out, "take over" and turn the article into a FA. This happens all the time and is actively encouraged through collaboration and article improvement drives. I think what you are really getting at applies to civility, not to ownership. Let's talk about this some more. —Viriditas | Talk 22:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the statement assumes too much, because there may in fact be no ill intent on the part of the editor who ends up assuming control. "Competetive" is probably the wrong word.

The real issue is making room for others' perspectives and points of view, then culling the best for the sake of the article. And I think you are right to identify this as an aspect of civility.

I wasn't sure at first what "FA" referred to, though after doing a search I think I now understand that it probably means "Featured Article"...right? Is this the sort of thing you concentrate on, V.? If so, then I can better understand your general approach.

How about:

Sometimes an editor who is very intent on improving an article will try to solve ownership issues by substituting himself as the primary editor. This is not unlike a hostile takeover in the business world, where an individual or a company possesses sufficient capital to buy a controlling share of stock in the company to be taken over. "Capital" in this context consists of the willingness to overpower an existing primary editor, or multiple editors, gradually forcing them out as they tire of incessant conflict. In any case, the new primary editor is no less in violation of Wikipedia ownership policies than the former primary editor or multiple editors

Expansion of the "Collaboration" section would need to dovetail with the above. Perhaps:

Most cases of ownership conflict could be avoided if the parties in question were to remember that intense conflict is often indicative of the potential for intense collaboration. Disciplining oneself to draw back, allowing space for other perspectives and points of view, and working collaboratively will improve the article beyond the capacity of a single dominant editor.

A related topic would be a concept promoted by Karl Jung called "The Shadow." As Robert Bly comments in his "A Little Book on the Human Shadow," (I'm paraphrasing here--don't have the book handy):

When you find yourself in conflict with another person, it may be that he or she is manifesting an aspect of your own Shadow, an aspect you have not yet sufficiently integrated."

Anyway, some thoughts. Needs more work of course.Apostle12 15:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the whole idea of a hostile takeover isn't really fleshed out. Your best bet is to borrow liberally from existing policies and guidelines. FA does stand for featured article, and that is the goal we are all supposed to be working towards. I like the Shadow idea, but again, unless it is clear, it won't make sense to people. BTW, there is another solution that may work for you, and that is the Wikipedia Essay. —Viriditas | Talk 00:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)