"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.

I wish, too, that people would generally refrain from reverting, except in cases of actual simple vandalism. Reverting doesn't say "I don't fully agree with your changes, but I'm willing to work with you to try to improve the article." Reverting says "I refuse to co-operate with you by pretending that what you're doing is in any way worthwhile."

So what would YOU advise those that are of the opinion that mentioning a misspelling is not a good idea to do? Just give up because there are some that think differently?

Hey, sometimes the second is actually true, and we actually should refuse to co-operate. If someone puts in utter and complete nonsense, a very good thing to do is just clean it up, revert it, quickly and with as little effort as possible.

But in this case, Adolph/Adolf, I don't see how it's appropriate to just revert.

Which basically means that you DO choose side in this debate. Because one side can do nothing but revert, while the other can choose a different wording every time.

Andre Engels