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 means to defusing disagreements and restoring peace is a diplomatic attitude that seeks compromise.

What is compromise? If you seek compromise, that does not mean--to state the obvious--that you grudgingly give way to the other side, nor that the other side simply gives way to you. It means you graciously give up your position in the expectation that the other side will do the same, and then you work together with the other side, diplomatically, toward something you can both agree on.

Compromise as the key to solving neutrality disputes. Many disputes turn on neutrality issues: one side claims that a piece of text is biased and the other claims it isn't. In that case, compromise is usually needed. It is more diplomatic to take the very fact that someone else is objecting as strong evidence that the text really isn't as neutral as it could be. Our policy is that one must, with unusual exceptions, seek out a compromise in such cases.

Compromise need not be at odds with the truth.

What about the prerogatives of editors?

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.