Talk:Adversarial process

Placed in a competitive dyad, onen often seeks to apply the role of victor and failure. This is typically an attempt to gain or display leverage in some form, whether commercial, social, or otherwise.

Not quite clear how the above fits in, and the last sentence seems controversial (i.e. needs a source. Removed from the article and remanded to Talk. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Pull 'em U Save 'Em

I pulled the following because it relates to Wikipedia, but breaks the fourth wall in terms of referencing Wikipedia. (see CFD for wp:mcg for example why we don't use wikipedia for this purpose.) I came to this page via a Meta-Wiki page and nearly didn't realize I had left Meta-Wiki.

Some view the wikipedia as an adversarial process, since alternating edits to an article are often seeking to balance what is seen (by each author in turn) as an extreme point of view. The idea of wikipedia:neutral point of view inherently assumes that such adversaries will eventually converge to some kind of agreement, more or less the same assumption as is made in supply-demand curves in economics. However, like economics, an underlying political economy wherein influence and power is traded, limited access to tools, fears of censorship or the need simply to allocate more of one's time to 'the real world', probably have just as much to do with where a dispute ends, as does any kind of 'balance'.

In this respect, Wikipedia is no different from political, economic, or court competition: those who have time and skill and friends and resources tend to prevail. This remains the most fundamental objection to adversarial process, and so most efforts to improve it, e.g. electoral reform, try to balance the resources available to both sides to make their case, and provide maximum opportunity for unpopular but valid views to make their way into the forum to be considered. In general, economic processes do this better than any other, as new information is incorporated in market prices often within minutes of some important event - due to the adversarial process of buyers and sellers - but also due to the consensus on credit, clearing and pricing systems, without which the entire market would simply dissolve into a puddle.

-- Guroadrunner (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)