User talk:Gryllida/Persuasion

A

I like this essay. I'd love to see this stuff tested in a real-Wiki setting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I think these principles apply in verbal arguments or debates, something I think you have experience with. Do they not? If not, which ones don't or which ones are missing? Gryllida (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion below, and an additional paragraphs added at the top of the essay, which suggest why this sort of thing is not common at Wikinews. Gryllida (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Right and wrong

I've been puzzling over this. The word postulate doesn't seem quite what's wanted. I wondered about the word frame, but, also not quite it. --Pi zero (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "state". Gryllida (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedianism

There's a major problem here, not in what the page says, but in its lack of context. (The content looks quite good for what it is.) In its out-of-context form —which is likely inherent in its premise— the page is about a Wikipedian thing alien to Wikinews. Wikinews cannot thrive whilst hosting long Wikipedia-style "debates"; some of the important insights I've picked up over the years into what makes Wikinews function smoothly are reasons why those sorts of debates don't happen here. Persuasion must not be an end in itself on Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added a few ideas about this at the beginning at the top. Perhaps this can be called 'DisagreementHandling' rather than 'Persuasion' in this new form. Gryllida (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I've been thinking we might have pages "Wikinews:Collaborating" and "Wikinews:Discussing". Or some such. Perhaps. --Pi zero (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Excellent point. While we can have long debates on project pages and the water cooler if we want, it could be detrimental on articles. Perhaps Wikinews could benefit from an essay about how to end discussions quickly, though it doens't necessarily have to be this essay.

Just brainstorming here but maybe an idea of "For now" and "this time" might do for us. "I am going to do this this way for this article..." Let's see how that idea grows in my brain... Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It is important that when a conversations is ended, this occurs without leaving an open disagreement. I have incorporated this into the essay as the last bullet point. Gryllida (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that's unrealistic.

We have people here with lots of experience and we disagree about things. If someone tells me that the spelling "gray" is wrong and only "grey" is right, I can show them a dictionary, but after that there's nothing I can do to change their mind. Better to accept that this person has a view that does not match mine or my sources and move on. Best to think of what other things I could do to keep the disagreement from slowing down the publication process. 1) State your view once if you have to and then move on. Okay. 2) Tolerate harmless changes. If this other person wants to change my "gray" to "grey," that's not that big of a deal. 3) Tolerate changes that are only mildly harmful. 5) If a change is more than mildly harmful, then it's okay if the article doesn't get published. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolution

Gryllida has repeatedly made clear that G believes that disagreements must be resolved and not just tolerated or worked around. I think that's unrealistic, but that doesn't mean we can't resolve them some of the time. So here's an idea:

• Say what it would take for you to change your mind.
• Make a promise that applies just to that article and not to all of the future.
• Give the other party a chance to do it.

To give an example. If someone tells me that the spelling "gray" is wrong and only "grey" is right, I would say, "I am confident that 'gray' and 'grey' are both right because my dictionary says so. If you can show me a better dictionary that says 'gray' is wrong or wrong for this article, I will put 'gray' in this article this time" or I'd say "If you can show me a Wikinews discussion in which the community at large agreed to use only 'grey' and never 'grey,' and you acknowledge that neither spelling is actually wrong then I will put 'grey' in this article this time." Treat it like a bet. Don't promise to keep doing it forever; the point is to get that article through review. Don't worry about future articles right then. You're not promising to change your mind forever. How do you guys think something like that would work here on Wikinews? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Briefly resolved exchanges are characteristic of en.wn. (The discussions you start that tend to become long and sprawling are atypical, and indicate something amiss; the underlying cause is deeper than rules-of-engagement, though, and how to bring that situation into better harmony with the normal function of the project is something we're still puzzling over.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

1) Radically change Wikinews by establishing a military-style chain of command that spells out exactly when drafters are and are not required to obey unnecessary commands. 2) Establish that the person who issues the command is responsible for any and all negative consequences regardless who actually makes the edit, even if they don't make the edit the exact way in which the commander imagined it. 3) Write it all down as explicitly stated policy and submit it to the community for ratification. 4) Accept that, even if the rules are written down and followed by all Wikinewsies at all levels of the hierarchy (as opposed to constantly changed on a whim), a lot of drafters will quit because only a certain type of person wants to kowtow on their volunteer time.

So if a reviewer orders a drafter "Spell it 'greh'! Both 'gray' and 'grey' are wrong. I order you, spell it 'GREH'!" and the drafter does it, and we all look stupid, the reviewer must be punished and not the drafter. That will take a long time to really work into the community. We have such a tradition on most parts of Project Wiki that the individual is responsible for whatever they post. Making an exception for drafters who are only following orders might not be possible in the Wiki culture. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Look if someone says

the spelling "gray" is wrong and only "grey" is right

my immediate reaction is

• to change it because it does not introduce inaccuracies to the story. Then
• at another location (water cooler or their talk page) leave a non-urgent inquiry where I suggest that both these things are in my opinion correct, and ask them why they would prefer one over another.

The reaction which you are proposing is not as efficient, I think. Gryllida (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Make an innocuous but unnecessary change because someone else thinks (incorrectly) that it's necessary" is okay to allow people to do and it's okay to encourage people to do, but I don't think it's okay to require people to do.

Also, there's the risk that the other person will go, "You AGREED with me that 'gray' is wrong. The fact that you changed it to 'grey' proves it! I was doing you such a favor by pointing out your STUPID mistake!! If you ever use 'gray' again, I will accuse you of being disruptive because I can prove you know better," when really, you, Gryllida were doing the grey-fan a favor by accommodating his or her unnecessary whims. It can backfire later. Can you think of a way of heading this off? Like I often do extra work to circumlocute around American punctuation because I know Pi zero doesn't like it, but I know Pi zero understands that I don't share his beliefs about the system and accepts that I'm just being extra nice to him (helps that he reciprocates). Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind making a minor edit because someone incorrectly thinks it is necessary. In return you may immediately get additional collaboration effort from them that can happen to be productive.

I take an opportunistic approach to communication with people: give them a little, and they may return a greater favour.

Their misunderstanding can be gently clarified elsewhere, in a less urgent way. Gryllida (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

For that to work, they have to recognize that you did them a favor. If they truly believe that "gray" is wrong and that they were educating you by telling you to change it to "grey," then they think it's the other way around.

If "collaboration" from this person comes in the form or being ordered to do more unnecessary work, then that's not productive. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It is both way and they'll be grateful for my listening to their tip.

Suggesting something unnecessary just once is not bad. Suggesting unnecessary work repeatedly is more problematic. The latter can be addressed at a water cooler, but it is rather rare. I haven't seen it. Gryllida (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The beginning

The issues on my thread at Wikipedia have got me thinking about this essay. Your first point here, Gryllida, is "have a high degree of trust." I think we need to start with how to establish that trust. On Wikipedia, it's not necessary to trust individual people because it's all about the sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think high degree of trust is necessary for persuasion? Gryllida (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I was looking at your first bullet point: "Have a high degree of trust and cooperation."

There are certainly other ways to persuade people. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)