  In this work, we study disagreement in discussions around Wikidata, an online
knowledge community that builds the data backend of Wikipedia. Discussions are
important in collaborative work as they can increase contributor performance
and encourage the emergence of shared norms and practices. While disagreements
can play a productive role in discussions, they can also lead to conflicts and
controversies, which impact contributor well-being and their motivation to
engage. We want to understand if and when such phenomena arise in Wikidata,
using a mix of quantitative and qualitative analyses to identify the types of
topics people disagree about, the most common patterns of interaction, and
roles people play when arguing for or against an issue. We find that decisions
to create Wikidata properties are much faster than those to delete properties
and that more than half of controversial discussions do not lead to consensus.
Our analysis suggests that Wikidata is an inclusive community, considering
different opinions when making decisions, and that conflict and vandalism are
rare in discussions. At the same time, while one-fourth of the editors
participating in controversial discussions contribute with legit and insightful
opinions about Wikidata's emerging issues, they do not remain engaged in the
discussions. We hope our findings will help Wikidata support community decision
making, and improve discussion tools and practices.
