Wikipedia talk:There is no justice

Something that might be added

Seek solutions, not justice. Different administrators react differently to similar situations, which is why there is inconsistency in the outcomes of similar events. Admin are volunteers that come from different countries, cultures and philosophies so there is no way to have true consistency in outcomes unless the system was overbearingly bureaucratic. The key is to use polite and civil discussion and persuasion, or simply agree to disagree. Cries of injustice will usually fall of deaf ears. It is better to ask for practical solutions that are reasonably fair and consider everyone's interests. Often, it is better to wait a day or two after a decision was made to allow reflection upon the events, and for cooler heads to prevail.

Maybe some tweaking, but I think the idea that "there is no justice, only solutions" would be beneficial to express more strongly. Keep in mind, I tend to quote this as for user disagreements rather than content disagreements, but I think it applies there equally well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Added, although I changed admin to "editors" because many aspects of dispute resolution don't involve the bit. Nobody Ent 16:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ownership, lack thereof

Note as this essay is in the Wikipedia space I don't own it and any editor is free to update per the usual Wikipedia bold and consensus processes. Nobody Ent 16:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Of course you don't, but I wanted your opinion as to the value of the addition as well. Notice that you don't see me at WP:DR, ever? I know how to use the talk page before making a large change. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ownership, of wikipedia

Whois data:

Domain Name:WIKIPEDIA.ORG Domain ID: D51687756-LROR Creation Date: 2001-01-13T00:12:14Z Updated Date: 2012-05-09T00:25:29Z Registry Expiry Date: 2016-01-13T00:12:14Z Sponsoring Registrar:MarkMonitor Inc. (R37-LROR) Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 292 WHOIS Server: Referral URL: Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited Registrant ID:mmr-116560 Registrant Name:Domain Admin Registrant Organization:Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Registrant Street: 149 New Montgomery Street Registrant Street: Third Floor Registrant City:San Francisco Registrant State/Province:CA Registrant Postal Code:94105 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.4158396885 Registrant Phone Ext: Registrant Fax: +1.4158820495 Registrant Fax Ext: Registrant Email:dns-admin@wikimedia.org Admin ID:mmr-116560 Admin Name:Domain Admin Admin Organization:Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Admin Street: 149 New Montgomery Street Admin Street: Third Floor Admin City:San Francisco Admin State/Province:CA Admin Postal Code:94105 Admin Country:US Admin Phone:+1.4158396885 Admin Phone Ext: Admin Fax: +1.4158820495 Admin Fax Ext: Admin Email:dns-admin@wikimedia.org Tech ID:mmr-116560 Tech Name:Domain Admin Tech Organization:Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Tech Street: 149 New Montgomery Street Tech Street: Third Floor Tech City:San Francisco Tech State/Province:CA Tech Postal Code:94105 Tech Country:US Tech Phone:+1.4158396885 Tech Phone Ext: Tech Fax: +1.4158820495 Tech Fax Ext: Tech Email:dns-admin@wikimedia.org Name Server:NS0.WIKIMEDIA.ORG Name Server:NS1.WIKIMEDIA.ORG Name Server:NS2.WIKIMEDIA.ORG Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs) 22:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It's well established that the domain name (and trade mark) is held by WMF, that's a far cry from owning Wikipedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

That is correct, owning the trademark is a far cry from owning wikipedia. Neither the bureaucrats, admins, foundation employees, nor the everyday contributors and editors like myself, none of them wp:Own the content, the software, nor the project itself. Jaredscribe (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Horrible, patronising essay

"Life is not fair" is not a piece of profound wisdom, it's a thought terminating cliche used by parents who can't be bothered explaining their decisions to their kids and by perpetrators or beneficiaries of injustice who want to throw in a little condescension on the side. The whole essay comes across as smug and annoying in a parental kind of way. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Life is in many ways very fair in fact. Fairness is a constant debate at all levels starting at kindergarten. What is fair is of great importance to us humans. Also, it is regarded as part of being civil it seems. My Chambers dictionary has 'civil' as one of the descriptions of 'fair', but not the reverse. I am not sure what that means. I don't think you are being fair to this article though. The rest of it seems ok. It is good to have a statement of the legal situation of rights etc. Jed Stuart (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"Civil" and "fair": Part of what that one-way thesaurus correspondence means is that civility of tone and wording choices can be used to mask unfairness of many kinds. This is a common problem on Wikipedia; cf. "civil PoV-pushing", gaslighting (in the broad sense), wikilawyering, and other forms of system-gaming. However, it's also a necessary feature of regulatory systems. For example, in a jurisdiction where possession of an ounce of marijuana is a serious crime, even though pretty much everyone understands that making it a serious crime is irrational, the court will be civil, calm, and formal – perhaps even regretful, recognizing the the law is unfair but has not been changed – when sentencing you to a long prison term.

Developed this part into a new essay at WP:Advice for hotheads

Why that matters on Wikipedia: That last factor is important to consider here. WP's administrative processes are entirely geared to protecting project stability, not toward individual "justice", and this is a marked difference from the approach taken by Western, democratic legal systems (especially common law systems); it has more in common with the legal systems in authoritarian jurisdictions, especially those with a civil law system. It's a "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" approach. Consequently, anyone who approaches WP administration and dispute resolution (especially when entirely controlled by admins, as at WP:AN, WP:AE, WP:RFARB, and WP:ARCA, versus the more everyone-gets-a-say forum of WP:ANI) from a "justice" perspective will be disappointed and may make their circumstances worse, quite quickly and sometimes irreparably. A large number of editors (myself included) are certain that in one proceeding or another they have been in the right yet got railroaded because, while their facts were correct, their attitude was disagreeable, individualistic, nit-picking, and grounded in WP:WINNING rather than having the dispute dissolve; and they got punished for "being uppity" and dragging out conflict to make a point, a little WP:GREATWRONGS micro-crusade for personal honor that no one else GaFs about. This perception is in fact entirely correct. Enforcement on WP necessarily takes this approach, because the very act of defying (on the grounds of technically being right about something) the collective peer pressure of the editorial community telling one to change one's ways, it itself considered disruptive. The community and in particular the administrative and arbitration corps care primarily about the functioning of the wiki organs; any individual cell in them causing inflammation, for whatever reason, is a cancer to be removed. It can take a long time for some editors (self included) to internalize this distinction, and some never do, and get indeffed or site-banned, or get in so much perennial trouble (blocks, topic- and interaction-bans, etc.) that they "quit in disgust". Inability to recognize that WP is not the Internet and is not academia or any other fully public sphere, but is akin to a closed game with a specific set of player-conduct rules, is in the end a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Either one gets it, eventually, or one is shown the door. Advice for the argumentative on how to stay out of trouble: As a cantankerous curmudgeon who has gone from regularly being sanctioned to now simply having a few long-term detractors (mostly over old history from ca. 2008–2012), the best advice I can give for similar people is to never, ever project anything mental about someone you're in a disagreement with. Focus exclusively on statements/content (on their own merits) and, if necessary to address editorial behavior, on provable patterns of edits. The fastest route to trouble is to say something like "You're irrational", "You're only saying that because you have an agenda", "This is more typical [insert username here] bullshit". These are all ad hominem fallacies laced with argument to emotion as well, a.k.a. demonization. Try instead: "That argument is unsound because [insert demonstrable logic and facts]", "That view seems to side unduly with [whatever off-WP third-party interest it seems to reflect, and why]", "That unhelpful edit fits a long-term behavior pattern: [insert diffs that prove it]". One particular feature of this approach to dispute is couching things in terms of one's own perception, not projection of imagined Platonic, objective truths about someone else, and especially not hypocritical psychological projection of one's own faults, failings, and behaviors onto others. Taking this careful approach is basically a way to be more polite and self-honest in a dispute if it is not likely to evaporate. The style also takes cues from both E-prime and nonviolent communication: Avoid the "to be of identity" and anything that smacks of it, in reference to another editor ("You are X", "You are doing Y"); instead, "This comes across as X to me", "How is that any different from Y?" Many "how to make friends and influence people" and "how to win arguments" writers have advised to as frequently as possible turn debate points into questions for the other party to answer rather than just making definitive statements others can challenge. I find this personally difficult (it's much more work), but it does in fact have a tendency to reduce conflict, by pressuring the other party to defend their assertion with actual facts and reasoning, rather than defending against what they perceive as an attack by issuing a counter-attack. If you're a "ranty-pants" type, go ahead and write your first reaction in a debate, but don't post it yet. Go have a snack or watch funny cat videos for half an hour, come back, and re-edit it to follow the above advice before posting it.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)