|This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.|
Collaboration and dispute resolution are more important than content contributions in a wiki community. While counterintuitive, this is because editors who are consistently disruptive and uncivil, or who bully or filibuster others into submitting to their will, will continuously alienate other contributors. These in turn will become a wellspring of resentment and negativity, which will worsen the alienation caused by the disruptive contributors.
An otherwise productive contributor who cannot collaborate is not a productive contributor.
How to mitigate alienation
In a collaborative environment such as a wiki, contributors who are unable or unwilling to collaborate with others should be politely but firmly excluded from the portions where conflict occurs, or even excluded from the community. This will address the alienation of other contributors, which will in turn address resentment. Contributors who are listened to and part of the process will generally not feel alienated if the discussion does not favour their personal position, because they will feel that they are part of the consensus and compromise process.
The increased contributions in this more collaborative community will far outweigh those made by disruptive editors. Therefore, productive contributions are not a valid excuse for disruptive or anti-collaborative behaviour.
That is not to say conflict in itself is bad. Conflicting ideas and positions can lead to compromise, better decisions, and a more neutral point of view. However, conflict becomes unhealthy when an editor has no intention of compromise or dispute resolution; such conflicts typically escalate until one party artificially "wins", when the other gives up or is alienated from the community.