Hello, people. This post is about coexistence of users in general with different points of view, but a solution for this kind of issues could, in my opinion, improve the atmosphere in Wikipedia, which some people think it's one of the causes of the gender gap problem.
Would it be possible to implement some kind of tool to call/convene (or prevent :)) people around certain topic (for example, a "hot" flag) when there's a tough discussion? Sometimes one user feels territorial with what he/(she) thinks/*feels* it's the only alternative, and another user (not so experienced) ends up in a "duel" with all reasons refused. The flag system could vary on whether it's based on the participation or on certain key words used in the conversation (block, administrators' noticeboard, etc.)
With a wider approach, there's another issue: Wikipedia is based on consensus. OK, but there are no specific rules for consensus. That means that, sometimes, you see that 10 users can do nothing against one or two "experienced" users (maybe administrators), because those 2 users state that "Wikipedia is not a democracy". OK, I agree that knowledge is surely not democratic with a narrow scope, but, in the case of Wikipedia, is that always true? I mean, let's imagine, for example, 100 people against 3, with sources of reference presented by both sides. Could it be said that Wikipedia is not a democracy in that situation? Who's the *judge* to determine who's right? Of course, it depends on who really are those 100 people and who really are those other 3 people, but, how can we know? Sometimes you watch the scene and understand that both points of view are feasible, or even that the "newbies" point of view is the correct one, but, who am I to enter the discussion? All I could get is the administrators' enmity.
Sometimes the only problem is that a lot of other experienced users (maybe administrators, too) who could have changed the balance of the discussion are not aware of what's happening in certain place, and when they notice it's too late (maybe one user retired or was blocked). Probably the avatar system could help in this, but, would it be enough?
And this leads me to a last question: is it fair to base knowledge on brute force? I'll explain myself: sometimes there are people who are just *afraid* to express their point of view because their experience tells them that they could end up blocked, specially when they are relatively new to Wikipedia and when there are precedents of refused suggestions. And nobody wants to take part because they just don't want to get into trouble. Experienced users know how to use a provoking speech with subtleties that are not really defamatory but can excite the other part by playing with his/her sensitivity, just to obtain "reasons" (nettiquete faults) to refuse the real reasons given. In these cases, pure reasons are deliberately replaced by the capacity to stay calm, and that's not fair.
I've also been thinking about a word to be used instead of "discussion". "Argument"? "Reason"? I particularly like the second one :)
Regards
Miguel Ángel