It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.
”Highly tendentious disputes over objectively minor issues hurt the Wikipedia project. They hurt the project by reducing editor co-operation, and can drive editors away from working in the areas of the encyclopedia in which they occur. The fact that something may contradict Wikipedia policies or guidelines is not enough to justify disruption that exceeds the harm caused by the underlying issue. Editors are expected to maintain proper perspective about the issues under discussion, and act to further the greater good of the encyclopedia.”
This essay is an attempt to explain how this principle can be understood.
Why this principle is important
Wikipedia is a collaboratively-produced encyclopaedia. Editors will therefore often disagree about both its content and its presentation. Such disagreements are healthy, and won't always have an easy resolution. However, sometimes the editors engaged in these disputes focus on them and imbue them with an importance far beyond what matters to Wikipedia's target audience. These editors are volunteers, but other editors will also find themselves having to deal with and resolve these disputes, detracting from their production and management of content. It is in these cases that this principle applies.
What this principle would typically cover
Disputes that are highly tendentious. Disputes that fall within this category tend to see people taking sides (e.g., supporters of one political party vs another). The contended points will typically arise multiple times in multiple forums for an extended period, defying low-level attempts at resolution.
Disputes that are about something that is objectively minor. Such a dispute is typically not about content, but instead about something that the ordinary reader, not being familiar with every detail of the formatting of Wikipedia articles, would not notice unless its presence or absence were pointed out to them. Such disputes may be very important to the people engaged in them, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia with a specific audience who quite simply aren’t going to even notice what they are arguing about – it impacts the presentation of facts, not the facts themselves.
Disputes that, as a result of being highly tendentious and about something objectively minor, detract significantly from the editing of people outside the dispute, by, for example, requiring repeated resolution of essentially the same issue, or taking up time that they would otherwise spend on something productive in terms of content. In this case, the lack of perspective of the people within the dispute as to the minor nature of what they are arguing about is detracting from the project as a whole.
What this principle typically would not cover
Disputes that are about content, for example, disputes about the factual content of articles, disputes about the notability of article-subjects etc. These disputes may be conducted disruptively and may still draw sanctions under another heading, but they won’t typically be examples of a loss of perspective.
Disputes that stay at a low level, within a particular project or forum.
How to keep perspective
Regularly shift your focus as an editor and work in a wide set of areas. This will give you a better idea of the relative importance of different areas of activity.
Carefully implement new guidelines, keeping in mind that consensus can change.
If you find yourself thinking that you are the only one, or one of a very few, holding back the barbarian hordes, it’s probably time to take a Wikibreak.
