Wikipedia:Herd mentality
| This project page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for deletion page. You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to deletion. |
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Whether you like to admit it or not, it is nearly impossible not to recognize a concerning pattern in the way special editing rights and privileges are granted here on Wikipedia. The current system, which heavily relies on the “demonstrated need for the right” requirement, is restrictive and often counterproductive to the very values that Wikipedia stands for.
At the heart of the issue lies how this "need for the right" is measured. It is predominantly assessed through an editor’s participation and alignment with the majority in consensus votes, such as AfD discussions. On the surface, this might seem like a reasonable gauge of an editor’s trustworthiness and eligibility for advanced rights. However, this practice often ends up encouraging a herd mentality, where editors feel pressured to conform to the majority opinion to maintain their standing within the Wikipedia community.
The inherent issue with majority rule is its tendency to stifle diverse opinions and discourage critical thinking. Let’s not keep lying to ourselves, it is a vote, because if it wasn’t then we would have a page that details exactly what it is consensus is declared based on. Do you know why we don’t? Because it's a vote.
Once a majority opinion forms in AfD discussions (and all other venues that call for consensus), it tends to dominate the conversation, leaving little room for dissenting voices. Editors, often unconsciously, gravitate toward the prevailing view to avoid being sidelined, deemed controversial and ruining their stats. As a result, the primary goal shifts from fostering robust debate and evaluating all arguments thoroughly to merely conforming to the early consensus. This dynamic can stifle innovative ideas and dissenting perspectives, falling short of Wikipedia’s goal of providing neutral and comprehensive content.
The insistence on aligning with the majority can lead to several detrimental outcomes:
1. Minority Voices Silenced: It is worth remembering that some of history’s most groundbreaking ideas and advancements came from minority viewpoints. If Galileo had yielded to the geocentric model of the solar system espoused by the majority in his time, the sun might still be revolving around the Earth — so to speak.
2. A Culture of Safe Choices: Editors, mindful of their eligibility for advanced rights, may resort to making safe choices and avoiding controversial or challenging positions. This tendency hinders robust debate and encourages self-censorship, resulting in a less dynamic and more homogenized platform.
3. Compromised Editorial Integrity: When conformity becomes the primary concern, the integrity of Wikipedia’s editing process suffers. Editors should be empowered to stand by their well-reasoned opinions and provide thoroughly verified arguments, regardless of whether they align with the majority. True progress comes from embracing a diversity of thoughts and perspectives.
By favoring conformity, Wikipedia undermines its commitment to providing a comprehensive and unbiased repository of human knowledge. History is replete with examples of individuals who challenged the status quo and presented revolutionary ideas. From Socrates to Marie Curie, these trailblazers often faced opposition and criticism for their divergent thoughts. Think about it. If Wikipedia's policies had been imposed on them, their voices might have been silenced, and we would have been deprived of their invaluable contributions.
So… what instead?
It is clear that the “demonstrated need for the right” requirement, as it stands, promotes a herd mentality and suppresses minority voices. To foster a more diverse community, we should reconsider this as a requirement for an editor seeking special editing privileges. Instead, emphasis should be placed on the quality of contributions and the coherence of their arguments.