I think its a naive view to expect two or more people to work on something without conflicts. How do these get solved in real life? Do people just keep pushing

I think its a naive view to expect two or more people to work on something without conflicts. How do these get solved in real life? Do people just keep pushing and pulling until one side cedes? Perhaps, but the more effective and optimal solution is to actually discuss it instead of creating a tug-of-war. [0] This way the results reflect a consensus, even if its a compromise, and this way Wikipedia can be host to multiple opinions. There's a really good reason every article is paired with a talk page. Just because it's called "The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit", it doesn't mean that its obligated to take anyones edits or that all that hard work won't be entirely rewritten in the future. [1][2] Lastly, what makes a "good edit". I've seen someone write paragraphs for a film on their personal interpretations of the protagonist's feelings. No doubt they thought this was essential information for someone to understand the film, but this went completely against Wikipedia's rule prohibiting original research. [3] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus... [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_requir... [2]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Edit: I said nothing about time in my comment, but addressed conflict resolution and the parent's comment about good edits. If taking the time and effort to discuss something is too much for you, maybe it's better that you don't try to work on a collaborative encyclopedia project.