Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a social club

Wikipedia is not a court of law, where objective facts reign supreme. Wikipedia is a social club, where if you go against the group norms, you'll be asked to leave.

Everyone has a moment where they see a situation, reference policy, and are certain that their viewpoint is correct. Then, to their surprise, few if any other editors agree with them. Even after explaining their position and why it's correct, still nobody is swayed. At this point, the editor has two choices: keep trying to show that they're correct, or drop it and move on.

The problem with sticking to facts you know to be true is that Wikipedia is not governed by arbiters of objective truth. It is, at its core, a bunch of people. No matter how rock-solid your argument is, if nobody is convinced, then pressing the point will be seen as disruptive editing and get you removed from the site.

Illustrative example

Suppose someone attends a Flat Earth Society meeting, and there begins to insist that the Earth is a geoid. They have all the facts, figures, and studies to back it up, but nobody at the society is convinced, and eventually they are told to stop talking about it. If they persist, they'll be asked to leave. It doesn't matter that they are objectively correct, because the social club they were in rejected the view and grew weary of discussing it.

So too with Wikipedia; you may have all the facts, from studies to quotes of Wikipedia policy pages, on your side, but if nobody else agrees, then continuing to insist will only get you blocked.

How to survive in the social club

How, then, does one survive in the social club that is Wikipedia? If we cannot count on objective truth to protect us, how are we to speak our minds?

Limited dissent

Dissent is important, and should not be stifled. However, the important factor to consider is that, once you've made your basic point, it's out there for anyone to read. You no longer have to keep debating it. Making your case is important to do, but once it's clear that nobody agrees, even if they haven't addressed your argument, just step back and let it go. If they could be convinced, you would've convinced them. If they cannot be convinced, then continuing to argue will just get you kicked out of the social club.

Avoid over discussed topics

Once you've determined that your argument is not well-received, you should drop it. You also shouldn't bring up an identical or similar argument elsewhere.

Consider holiday dinners: your uncle has that bizarre political view, and you've had arguments with him about it before. Nobody changed their minds, and now you're back together for the holidays. Bringing up the same tired political debate isn't going to change minds, it's just going to annoy the whole family and make them wonder if the dinners wouldn't go better if your invitation was somehow "lost".

So too with Wikipedia. You've had a discussion and, despite your argument being correct, nobody agreed. If you bring that argument up again later, no matter how relevant, it's going to be viewed as rehashing old debates, and likely wasting everyone's time.

Consider that you are mistaken

One final closing note. The above holds true if you are correct, but it also holds true if you are mistaken. The more people who disagree with you without anyone agreeing, the less likely it is that your argument is as strong as you think it is. If 50 people look at your argument, and none agree with you, what's more likely: that all 50 people are unable to see obvious truth, or that perhaps there's a flaw in your argument around which you can't yet wrap your head?