CZ:Compromise

This is a policy proposal up for approval by both the Editorial Council and the Constabulary.

The policy: when conflicts arise over how articles are to be worded, it is absolutely crucial that we work diplomatically toward compromise solutions, acceptable to both sides.

Why is compromise important? The wiki process involves collaboration on jointly authored texts for which, ultimately, many people take responsibility. If one party demands a certain wording, and another party demands a different wording, an impasse occurs that makes further joint authorship and joint responsibility very difficult, socially speaking--even if the dispute is about a single word. Peace is absolutely required if there is to be smooth collaboration. The single most important tool in defusing disagreements and restoring peace is a diplomatic attitude that seeks compromise.

Compromise requires something from both parties.

Compromise need not be at odds with the truth.

Aren't there any exceptions?

Notes (in process)

The variety of possible manner of expression of even the most basic facts is virtually infinite. Of all these ways to express things, many are likely to be acceptable to all parties--so long as they are actually committed to neutrality. But if they insist on having their own bias represented to the exclusion of all others, no compromise will ever be acceptable. Perhaps it wasn't obvious, but compromise is practically entailed by neutrality.

Not only should we accept a good compromise, we should actively work toward a compromise. Consider intransigence contrary to policy.