From: engelsAG@t-online.de (Andre Engels)
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Mother Teresa article To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org
Everyone should make
effort
to be consensual, but veto should be a "right" to
me.
But what do you do plan to do if everything is vetoed by someone?
Andre Engels
That is a good question Andr�. My belief voting is bad does not insure that not voting if perfect unfortunately. None of these options is perfect. I just think one is better than the other. That is just my opinion.
I think it unlikely that everything is vetoed by someone, because everyone is aware of the risk inherent to blocking. That should be an extrem choice, not one to choose easily.
So, what might be done in case of a veto ?
I think the first option in case of a veto is precisely what Jimbo said "The wiki process! Editing, re-editing, striving to accomodate others, loving care for the facts, respect for others, editing some more, re-editing some more, arguing, talking on the talk page, complaining on the mailing list about article contents, etc.". Just discussing over and over and over, till the tip of fingers are raw skin :-) (I talk less when I cut a bit of a finger while taking care of carrots in my kitchen :-)). I think that then, perhaps instead of taking time to vote, people should take time to go to the vetoer (if that term exists), and try to see whatever option they could agree on with him. May take time.
If that does not work, another option is just to drop the entire matter. Just leave it be. Even if you think it is pov. It is not the end of the world. I do not think an article can ever be perfectly neutral. Is it so important that there is a little bit biais in it after all ? Why not waiting for a bit, until everyone cool down, a few weeks perhaps, because sometimes someone says veto in the heat of a discussion, and later reconsider quietly. Or wait for another editor to come one day, perhaps 6 months later, and miraculously, to find the "good" satisfying solution. Is there so much hurry for reaching perfection ? May we not choose to just approach it ?
Another option is to get rid of the vetoer opinion. That is a way as well. One may say the opinion is irrelevant as a minor one. Set a vote, pick up the majority.
Another way is to despair the vetoer so much he will give up. Some use insults, personal attacks, to the point the vetoer feels he is not welcome. And goes away.
A last option is the get rid of the vetoer, by declaring him unfit to participate reasonably.
And after all, if the only way of a project to go on properly is to be made by people willing to cooperate together, it is possible to say that one using veto too often is blocking situations too often, and as such having behavior detrimental to the community good progress.
I choose options 1 and 2. And I keep both Erik and JT :-)))
Do you think that if all the decisions on the talk page are 40% 60%, picking up the solution with 60% will be ok ?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/