From: Andre Engels "Jimmy Wales" jwales@bomis.com schrieb:
Voting on the content of articles is not something that I think is generally helpful, since it tends to lead to a lot of carping about what the result of the vote actually means.
Rather than voting one way or the other, a better approach is for
all
sides to work towards creatively accomodating the other people
working
on the article.
Which is a method that also doesn't work. People just talk and talk
and
talk until one side decides they're tired of the whole thing and gives
up.
In general, let's say the vote goes 80%/20% on some specific content issue? To me, that says that the 20% side has conclusively demonstrated that the article is _not_ NPOV. NPOV requires (near) unanimity.
I think that's a ridiculous assumption. There can easily be near- infinitely many versions that are _all_ NPOV. And some prefer one,
others
the other. There's more differences in opinion than just NPOV.
Ah, the problems with the use of a poorly defined term of art to guide policy.
Andre, you forget that Jimbo defined what "NPOV" means, so if he says that NPOV requires (near) unanimity, it must be so.