[WikiEN-l] Adolph

[The Cunctator]

> From: Andre Engels
> "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at 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.