On 1/16/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
It's very nice in Wikipedia to work with consensus. But what if no consensus is found? How is it decided then?
That would depend a bit on the nature of the dispute, I guess?
In an article or other content dispute, perhaps the involved editors should do their best to make necessary concessions, possibly including a section on the article to describe the nature of the controversy at hand (this assumes all parties are acting more or less reasonably).
In terms of policy debate, en.wikipedia at least is pretty deeply fleshed out and institutionalized, as opposed to a new project where there's little existing practice or precedent -- people are usually trying to gain consensus to *change* something, in this sort of environment. If no such consensus is achieved, we usually fall back on the status quo of existing practice.
Some situations can't always be resolved that way, in which case there's no easy solution. Or if there is, I'm missing it.
-Luna