I've been working on Wikipedia pages over the summer and the real interesting part of editing articles is the discussion that occurs behind the scenes. Despite what many readers may think, Wikipedia is extremely strict in regards to sourcing accurate information, maintaining a neutral point of view, and establishing encyclopedic content. This is all despite being run by volunteer editors, not just in the editing but in creating the actual guidelines they are expected to follow. These structures put in place on Wikipedia allow the most controversial topics imaginable to be documented effectively (for the most part).

The article for the 2021 United States Capitol attack is emblematic of this phenomenon. What could be more polarizing than documenting the culmination of quite possibly the most divisive United States election in history? To be fair, the discussion of the title of this article was previously tumultuous; prior to the May 20 move discussion (“moving” on Wikipedia refers to moving the contents of the article to a different URL, thereby changing the title), there had been 12 discussions prior. However, this discussion that I selected was the one that established the current title, which has remained stable for roughly 3 months. So the question is how is this discussion different?

The original move request was that the name change from “2021 storming of the United States Capitol” to “January 6 United States Capitol attack”. There are two issues at play here: the name has to present a neutral point of view and reflect the “common name” of the event. The rationale behind the request was that the term “storming” can glorify an event, an example being the Storming of the Bastille, and that the date had become highly linked to the event’s coverage. Some counterarguments raised included that “storming” is less vague than attack and reflects what makes the event significant (the rioters entering the building) and that “January 6” will be only ubiquitous for the event this year (if it even currently is at all), as the event took place on the previous January 6.

These same points have been made over and over again for months, why did this discussion put an end to the debate? Firstly, the discussion was organized and it had access to the necessary cultural context of the event. 11 of the 12 discussions mentioned earlier occurred within a month of January 6, and 5 out of 12 occurred within a week. The result of these rapid-fire move requests was that each discussion didn’t have the entire community involved. And allowing deliberation not just for an editor consensus but for a media consensus and public consensus to form allowed a legitimate discussion to take place. Secondly, an agreement was made to choose a third name, “2021 United States Capitol attack”, instead of the two original choices. You might think this was a compromise, but that’s not true. The editors appeared to fall into two camps in the original move discussion, yes, but to pick a mediocre choice over the much more popular, but unlisted, choice. The camps didn’t give up parts of their demands as in a compromise, they came to a new agreement.

Cooperation and compromise are not the same things. The former can often lead to the latter, but it can just as often lead to mutually desired outcomes. Take British politics for another example — specifically Scottish politics. As described in a news report by the BBC, the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Scottish Greens cooperated to form a majority government in favor of Scottish independence from the United Kingdom. Granted, since these two parties disagree on a whole lot, there were some compromises in the deal, like less strict environmental regulations than the Greens preferred, and the SNP’s surrender of two ministerial positions. But the core of its importance is not in environmental issues or minister seats, in my opinion, these appear to be only roadblocks to the main agreement: a new Scottish independence referendum. If the referendum results in Scottish independence, then all of these issues would become easier for Scottish-exclusive political parties to achieve, as they’ll have more influence without the restrictions that come with a union with England.

Of course, cooperation is not a direct consequence of divisive environments. It seems obvious to say so, divisive environments are obviously unfavorable to cooperation. But there is this widespread notion that we — as the United States, as a collective humanity, as individuals — will overcome, just as we always have. Even if you open your eyes to the failures of history, you may believe that we have learned from the mistakes of the past. And even if all of that fails, there must be some sort of twist where the good guys (us) win. Take the protest song We Shall Overcome for example. I really hate to “argue” against this song because I actually like the song a lot, but it’s important to recognize that it serves a specific purpose. The song is meant to invoke hope in oppressed peoples, and optimism is supposed to be good, but that doesn’t mean that the message that everyone will come together and cooperate someday, that we’ll “walk hand in hand” and “live in peace someday”, is true. In fact, if you take that the title is the singer’s conclusion, the only supporting evidence given is that they believe it “deep in [their] heart”. That might be good enough for some people, but not for me!

The whole reason why I am going on this charade is that I would like to remind you that because we only focus on the successes, we forget that they are few and far between. In a video by the journalist Carlos Maza, he describes how we are bound to never cooperate in times of crisis and division, like in the current COVID-19 pandemic. In order to keep hope, humans first pretend that crises don’t exist, then scapegoat other people, and finally (maybe) actually try to solve the problem. But not only does Maza describe our bleak reality, but he details the despair that realizing it causes. We subconsciously believe that things will be okay because we really want them to be. When you realize that isn’t necessarily true — when you actually realize it — it is the single most reality-changing moment in your life. It is also the most futile. Yet, he still recommends, despite arguing that doing so is hopeless, that you should still try to cooperate with other people. Hold out your hand for the minute chance that humanity will take it.

This becomes all the more frustrating when empty cooperation takes place, i.e. cooperation for cooperation’s sake. This is exemplified by the cover of John Lennon’s song “Imagine” by 25 celebrities during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The video was negatively received for its tone-deafness; rich celebrities were singing — some preachy and others nonchalantly — about getting through this pandemic while people were losing their jobs, losing their homes, getting sick, and literally dying. And all while half of the country thought it would all go away in a few weeks. I think it is useful to view this video through the lens of cooperation, as one of the main elements of the video is that it isn’t just one celebrity, but over 2 dozen, to show that we are united to inspire hope. But not only did the video not achieve anything, but it failed to serve as an accurate representation of the frustrating new reality we were living through. Frustrating because we were not cooperating on anything of substance, we were still in the avoidance stage.