 | 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. |
 | This page in a nutshell: As the title suggests, the essay may be brilliant. On the other hand—as the title also suggests—some may be inclined to disagree with this assessment. |
There are multi-varied approaches to disagreeing brilliantly on Wikipedia. Even if being a Brilliantly Disagreeing Wikipedian isn’t really your life’s work, the notion may yet have a certain allure. Even in the thick of a disagreement with one of those elusively invisible other editors, the sensation of turning through cyberpace, gazing into a lighted portal, can still make you feel as graceful as if you were a whirling dervish—which is its own kind of brilliance. Alternatively, you may feel as confounded as any insect with two or more of its limbs jammed between the Z and X keys on your own keyboard.
The way to becoming a Brilliantly Disagreeing Wikipedian has as much to do with how we think about the whole nature and pattern of disagreement—and how we adapt according to any new understanding—as with comprehending our present habits and temperament, and seeing past the controversy in any given discussion. In the quest to become a savant of cyberspace—or, alternatively, a user who is simply effective and benign—some of what is below may at least prove helpful, if not brilliant.
What follows is an in-depth discussion of the topic. If you're in a hurry and are trying to make sense of a conflict, and find a way of de-escalating it quickly, there are concise essays and official policies on the topics of dispute resolution, establishing a truce, harmonious editing and consensus. For sheer pith hardly anything beats the essay no angry mastodons.