I do agree that people often work out their disputes, but i have also seen, and been
involved in, cases where the one with the ability to block wins. That is the sort of thing
that not only drives people out of the project, but also causes them to advocate against
the project to people they meet.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------
From: Daniel and Elizabeth Case
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:16 PM
To: kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com;Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase
theparticipation of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election
What’s missing from this?:
I don’t think most disputes get “resolved”. I think one
person simply gives up. Maybe they don’t think the issue is that important, >maybe they
feel that they don’t have the time to argue it, maybe they feel that the other person
involved is too unpleasant to want to try to engage with, maybe they’ve found that no
matter what they do, they never make a difference.
Give up? It’s “maybe one person realizes the other person was right, and does it their way
from then on, without any hard feelings.” It has happened to me quite a few times. That’s
the sort of outcome I was talking about.
Of course, I think of these in terms of pure content disputes (should we or should we not
mention something? how should we format this table? and so forth ...) because that’s what
most of those I’ve been involved in have been. Disputes over someone’s conduct are
something else entirely, because it’s harder for people to admit they were wrong in that
department. And why I always say it cannot be repeated enough that, when you realize the
argument is no longer about what you were originally arguing about but has instead become
a meta-argument about the argument itself, you should stop immediately as it will no
longer accomplish anything constructive to continue.
Daniel Case