|This page is an essay, containing 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.||
|This page in a nutshell: Make explicit concessions when an argument is lost.|
In the course of editorial discussions, the concept of a concession means simply to be courteous to explicitly "surrender", rather than to leave a lost argument and indicate a concession only through implication, or else allowing idle time to pass. A concession need not be a speech, and can be signalled with the simplest of notation, such as
Making a concession signals to others that adversarial debate has closed and parties can then move on toward constructive tasks.
Making explicit concessions also shows good faith. Often in the course of arguments we encounter valid counterarguments. Rather than be antagonistic or adversarial, concede what is valid to such counterarguments. This shows not only good faith, and civility, but that you are oriented toward achieving consensus, and in fact it makes your argument stronger if you can respond effectively to every such counterargument. Naturally there will be cases in which you find a counterargument to be superior to your own, and such counterarguments may in fact change your own thinking. Rather than simply walk away, give concession to your opponent(s) by stating clearly that they have won the argument through logic, reason, and clarity of concept.
Concessions help in a number of ways:
- Marks the resolution of particular editorial discussions
- Moves the discussion onto new issues
- Moves the edit-discussion process along from discussion into actual editing
- Generates good faith and collegial atmosphere
- Dissipates antagonistic conflicts