Kelly Martin wrote:
Wikipedia is not therapy. Wikipedia does note exist
for the purpose
of validating the feelings of our myriad contributors. It is not our
responsibility to make everyone feel loved.
But when we do make everyone feel loved, our work is much more pleasant
and effective... for them and for us.
This is why it is always better to try to find the best in what someone
has done, even when we disagree, and to try to disagree in a way which
rewards and supports the intelligence and thoughtfulness of the other
person.
This is a two way street, of course. It takes two to tango. If someone
says something harsh, which appears to assume bad faith or whatever, a
good response is to appreciate and support the elements of good faith in
_that_, and respond positively to that, without endorsing the assumption
of bad faith.
Like this:
Person A nominates something for deletion. For the sake of argument,
let us assume this is completely brain dead.
Person B says "This nomination is wrongheaded, meritless, misguided, and
stupid." Let assume that we, privately, think this is true.
What should A do? What should C, D, and E do?
They can say "You are assuming bad faith! AGF! AGF!" but this does not
seem helpful.
Better might be to try to find some kernel of usefulness in what the
nominator was attempting to do. "While I agree with B that this
nomination ought not to succeed, I commend A for trying to deal with the
underlying issue of articles of this type. While I do not think this is
the sort of example of things we should be deleting, I do agree that
there are problems with this article. A, I wonder if you might consider
working with me on an alternative approach..."
Or whatever suits that moment.
The idea here is that Assume Good Faith is really important, and
WikiLove is really important. Being harsh and feeling sanctimonious
about battling idiots is a temptation that all good people can fall
into, especially when tired. But it dehumanizes others and causes them
to behave worse, not better.
--Jimbo