allowing us to illustrate not only the collaborative process of constructing the encyclopedia but also its way of dealing with the complexity and the plurality of the Spanish language.

4.2. Results and analysis: (im)politeness

As we were able to show from the quantitative analysis described in previous questions, discussions form an essential part of the dynamic imposed by Wikipedia for the collaborative construction of knowledge, aimed at the encyclopedia’s continuous improvement.

Besides Wikipedia’s preoccupation with the use of references and other elements that enhance its quality, there is a parallel concern about its good functioning. As we pointed out in section 2.2., discussions surrounding the articles selected resemble those seen on opinion forums, in that they have a purpose-theme around which debate is centered, and, like these forums, have an internal structure which attempts to implement certain mechanisms that assure orderly management of content and forms of expression– a feature that Wikipedia itself is ever more assiduous in promoting. On the discussion pages themselves, there is continuous reiteration of the expectation of civil behavior –and many users issue reminders too– when suggesting or advising changes to an article, communicating errors to other users or adding information. It is clear, however, that these directives are not always followed since while there are many user interventions in which agreement, expressed either directly or indirectly, does prevail there are also those in which disagreement, total or partial, is shown and manifests in ways that may be impolite or not.

As indicated by Brenes Peña (2011: 11), the current culture is given to criticism and, “disagreement, confrontation and dispute have become, for various reasons, very frequently used forms of interaction”. Nevertheless, even where disagreement can be expressed politely, more often than not, it is formulated impolitely.

In section 4.2.1. we will examine the nature of these discussions. We will focus our interest on illustrating some of the (im)politeness strategies employed.

4.2.1. Affiliation and agreement

Despite the fact that the dynamic of the encyclopedia itself not only lends itself uniquely to interventions that allow for the correction of, that is to say, rejection of a piece of information, but also its ratification, finding in favor of one or another user, manifestations exclusively showing agreement do not usually form the majority of expressions in discussions. When agreement does appear, it may do so explicitly, in a direct fashion, through the use of a performative verb (I agree, I am in accord).

(3) I agree totally with Cipión’s comment, I live in Catalonia and I detect a growing use of the phenomenon he reports. It’s a good observation, perhaps we should look for a citation to a source that might capture the fact to give references for the phenomenon Davius. 10:55 3 mar 2007 (CET) (Discussion: “Controversia por el nombre del idioma español”, 2020).

What is more, as we are dealing with controversies, where the only purpose of agreement is affiliation, it is often the case that it appears in an intensified form, as in the unqualified agreement which occurs in example (3), through the use of the adverb totalmente ‘totally’. In this example the move of agreeing is further reinforced by the expressive act of giving an