It's hard to tell, but lately it seems that the only pages with any traffic consist of two or three individuals bickering endlessly. I'm reminded of two children fighting, and when a parent comes along they respond with the cry of "He Started It!"

People, consider the impression you're giving. Ask why you're bothering. Clearly you will each never convince the others, and all you're doing is damaging any weight your opinions may carry. If you're mature enough, intelligent enough, and sufficiently socially aware, maybe you'll stop for a bit to think about it.

Of course, you are mostly anonymous, so perhaps you don't care what you leave behind you on WardsWiki. You may think it's necessary to correct the obviously fallacious, and hence get drawn into these endless, fruitless and pointless cycles. Think again. Is this the best use of your time?

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Subtext: What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!

Sometimes it's just time to leave.

-----

Bickering about who is the meanest or sloppiest is indeed a problem. However, an on-topic bickerfest often means there is an "unsolved" problem.
* ''There is a difference between bickering and constructive dialogue. Many people here don't seem to know how to engage in the latter. They should at least try. The insanely great thing about a wiki is the ability to distill information from multiple, sometimes opposing, contributions. Too many people seem to think the thing to do is intersperse sniping ripostes into an otherwise flowing document. In doing so, the potential understanding that could be gained from two minds is reduced to aforesaid bickering. Such a waste.''
** That criticism is not specific enough to be usable. -- top
*** ''It sounds like you are simply dismissing it.  Have you thought about how to make the advice more concrete?''
** As far as me "not trying" to have constructive dialog, that is flat false. I try very hard. (I don't claim I've found the formula to always succeed, though.) -- top
*** ''I wasn't actually thinking of you specifically.  Interesting that you have assumed I was.  And perhaps the advice given above - which you dismiss as insufficiently specific - can help you to be more constructive.''
* ''Here's a thought: when you reply to something, instead of thinking of yourself as replying to an author, think of yourself as producing an agreed document for a wider audience. If you don't agree with something someone else has said, try to fold both points of view into a coherent presentation.''
** If you don't address the individual's concern, they will get angry.
*** ''And that's a perfect example.  All you've done is snipe, rather than trying to enhance the document to retain the original point and add your own.  Did you even try?  You claim you're trying to create constructive dialog - did you try this time?  You might think so, but it really doesn't look like it.''
*** ''Try this instead:''
**** ''"Here's a thought: when you reply to something, don't think of yourself as replying to an author.  Instead, think of yourself as producing an agreed document for a wider audience. Make sure that all concerns are addressed, otherwise people will get upset that their contributions or viewpoints are ignored.  If there is disagreement, then possibly set up a pros and cons section, or perhaps present a balanced pair of viewpoints. If you have a compelling argument, cite the other person's point of view WITHOUT DISTORTION and present your evidence or argument.  Yes, this takes time, but the result is far, far more useful than the eventual sprawl of ThreadMess."''
*** ''Now it's clear that the original content is still there, but it's been enhanced to cover the extra point of view.''

----
CategoryInteraction / CategoryDialogue