Wikipedia:Compromise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion.
Negotiation skills often assist editors in delicate situations.
Dispute resolution (⇛)
Honest conduct
Gaming the system
Tendentiousness
Calming problems
Wikiquette
Assuming good faith
No angry mastodons
Civility
Negotiation
Article talk pages
Discussion
Compromise
Editor assistance (⇒)
Third opinion (⇒)
Request comments (⇒)
Wikiquette alerts (⇒)
Mediation
Mediation Cabal
Mediation Committee (⇒)
Guide to mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee
Request arbitration
Remedies
Administrator assistance
Arbitration enforcement
Editing restrictions
General sanctions

Shortcut:
Wikipedia:Compromise

Contents

The cooperative process and compromise

Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. "Splitting the difference" compromise is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

However, this should not stop participants from finding compromises that provide a balanced presentation. Compromising in the context of editing can mean a few different things.

Article topic compromise
If the dispute is over a specific controversial issue which is a topic of the entry, compromise often means inclusion of some of the material which each side has proposed. Doing so will mean that both sides of a debate or issue will receive some coverage. This will ultimately make an entry more balanced and comprehensive.

Article format and editing compromise
If the dispute is over a specific point of editing the entry itself; in other words, the controversy is not focused on any issue described by the entry, but rather relates to the form, phrasing, structure or any aspect of the editing process itself, then compromise often means finding some editing technique which can incorporate both of the proposed styles or techniques. There are a few possible methods for this. One possibility is to provide a few subsections for the disputed section, in order to incorporate both ideas or proposals.

Try to find objective criteria

The goal of Wikipedia, presumably shared by all sides to any dispute, is to produce a useful and reliable reference work. Objective criteria such as accuracy, reliability, and fair representation of all significant points of view can be used as participants in a dispute to work toward solutions.

References and further reading

  • William Ury, Roger Fisher and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in, Revised 2nd edition, Penguin USA, 1991, trade paperback, ISBN 0140157352; Houghton Mifflin, April, 1992, hardcover, 200 pages, ISBN 0395631246. The first edition, unrevised, Houghton Mifflin, 1981, hardcover, ISBN 0395317576
  • William Ury, Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation, revised second edition, Bantam, January 1, 1993, trade paperback, ISBN 0553371312; 1st edition under the title, Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People, Bantam, September, 1991, hardcover, 161 pages, ISBN 0553072749
  • Gerard I. Nierenberg, The Art of Negotiating: Psychological Strategies for Gaining Advantageous Bargains, Barnes and Noble, (1995), hardcover, 195 pages, ISBN 156619816X
v • d • e
Essays on Wikipedia civility
The basics
Philosophy
Dos
Don'ts
Wiki relations

Personal tools