User:TransporterMan/Sandbox/6

What does it mean to discuss in a collaborative way? It does not mean to not disagree or to just let the other person's point of view prevail. It means to work together and to respect one another's ideas and give them due consideration. To get you thinking in the right way let me suggest a thought experiment:

Let's say that you and the other editor are subjects and trusted advisers of a king, an absolute ruler with the power of life and death over his subjects. Both you and the other editor are married and you each have a young child who you love. You and your colleague are in a dispute over certain advice to give to the king and the dispute has become bitter. The result is very important to the king, but nothing is happening because you and your colleague cannot agree. The king calls you both in and gives you this ultimatum: "Both of you have good ideas, but I want the decision to be yours, not mine. I want you to discuss this and come to a decision, right here and right now. I'm just going to sit back and watch, but here are the ground rules: You have to discuss your ideas and come to a mutual agreement. If either of you simply gives up and walks away from the discussion, the other party wins, but I am going to kill the child of the one who gives up. If you both simply give up and walk away from the discussion, I will kill both your children. I will be listening to your discussions. Up until now you couldn't agree on anything so I will know if you both just agree to an arbitrary solution to avoid the penalty I am threatening. If I think you've done that, I will kill both your children. You've only got an hour to come to a decision. No extensions for any reason. If you've not reached a decision in one hour, I will kill both your children. In other words, I want you to work together to come to a real, collaborative decision, with both of you agreeing to it for good, well-considered reasons. It may be that you decide together that the idea that one of you has going into this is the right one or that there's some other answer or a middle ground that's better, that's up to you to work out. Finally, I'm not going to say that you can't insult one another, call one another names, accuse one another of improper motives, argue with me or with one another about the process, or do or say whatever you want, but I will point out that those kinds of things take up a lot of time and are very unlikely to be productive or successful. These rules are non-negotiable and the Royal Executioner is waiting outside with your children and a very sharp axe. The one hour timer starts ... NOW!"

Pretend that the dispute that you're having with the other editor here at Wikipedia has to be resolved under that set of rules. With that pressure, how would you go about coming to a mutual agreement with the other user?

The answer basically turns on the question, "Why?"

• Why is your opponent's idea not as good as yours? Do your reasons for feeling that way make objective sense? If so, why can't you explain that to your opponent?
• Why is your idea better than your opponent's? Do your reasons for feeling that way make objective sense? If you so, why can't you explain that to your opponent?"

You have to convince your opponent that you're right and he's wrong, at least in part. What do you think will do that? Calling him names or telling him he's biased probably isn't going to do that. Just saying, "my idea is just better" or "I just like my idea more" isn't going to work, either, unless you can say why your idea is better or why you like it more or, conversely, why you think your opponent's idea is worse or why you like it less. (Most good arguments will do both, "I like my idea better because X and I like your idea less because Y.")

There are, of course, some "why's" which are not worth very much in terms of convincing your opponent. "I'm a member of the Blue Clan and you're a member of the Purple Clan and members of the Purple Clan are morons whose opinions are worthless," is indeed a "why" but it's not very likely to convince your opponent that he should compromise, even if you can present a good argument to prove that members of the Purple clan are, indeed, morons. If that's all you've got to defend your ideas, then you better say goodbye to your kid. Another couple which give that same result are, "you don't deserve to win because your Purple Clan massacred thousands of the members of my Blue Clan 20 years ago" or "you Purple Clan people are just biased and prejudiced against the ideas of my Blue Clan." If those are your best arguments, there's going to be more room at your dinner table when you go home tonight.