So how does the reasonability rule apply to Wikipedia?
Editors are urged to observe the reasonability rule when working in a massive collaborative effort such as this electronic encyclopedia:
- Consensus arises only when the community as a whole agree that a particular action or presentation is reasonable in nature. While the community often has individuals that would disagree with a specific action or determination, it is important that the editors who disagree with consensus are assured that the community reasonably take the differences of opinion in consideration while the process of forming a consensus proceeds. Similarly, it would be unreasonable for an apparent consensus to form that would be contrary to Wikipedia policies (for example, insisting that a material fact is contrary to that presented in reliable sources).
- A person insisting on a position or action contrary to the bulk of the community would be violating the reasonability rule by repeatedly reverting additions supported by the community itself, for such an insistence is assuming that the community is acting in bad faith; on the other hand, if consensus exists for a particular action or position, insisting that there is no consensus would also be a violation of the reasonability rule as it would be unreasonable for the community to assert consensus when none is present. Unfortunately, instances of editors violating the reasonability rule are common on Wikipedia and often result in unresolved edit wars, mediation, and more drastic measures by administrators.
- Administrators must be diligent in observing the reasonability rule when enforcing policy. Is it reasonable to conclude, by using Wikipedia policies, that a particular article should be deleted? Is a particular username a reasonable one for an editor to have, or is it inappropriate for this venue? Is a particular action against a particularly disruptive editor reasonable and appropriate in light of the disruption? Is the action "appropriate" and reasonable in light of the editor's tendencies and proclivities?
Another way of looking at the reasonability rule is this: if you're involved in an action or judgment involving (or by) another person, reverse roles. If the role reversal forces a change of opinion as to whether the action or judgment is unreasonable, then the original action—with the original roles—violates the reasonability rule. Such violations should be kept to a minimum: full compliance with the reasonability rule will result in a minimum of conflict and a maximum of productivity and enjoyment for all who participate. Such is always the goal of a collaboration of any scale.
