CZ:Compromise

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |} This is a policy proposal up for approval by both the Editorial Council and the Constabulary.

When conflicts arise over how articles are to be worded, it is absolutely crucial that we work diplomatically toward compromise solutions, acceptable to both sides.

What is compromise and why is it important?

If you seek compromise, that does not mean--to state the obvious--that you grudgingly give way to the other side, nor that the other side simply gives way to you. It means you graciously give up your position in the expectation that the other side will do the same, and then you work together with the other side, diplomatically, toward something you can both agree on.

The wiki process involves collaboration on jointly authored texts for which, ultimately, many people take responsibility. If one party demands a certain wording, and another party demands a different wording, an impasse occurs that makes further joint authorship and joint responsibility very difficult, socially speaking--even if the dispute is about a single word. Peace is absolutely required if there is to be smooth collaboration. The single most important means to defusing disagreements and restoring peace is a diplomatic attitude that seeks compromise.

Compromise as the key to solving neutrality disputes

Compromise is often practically entailed by neutrality, since many disputes turn on neutrality issues: one side claims that a piece of text is biased and the other claims it isn't. It is more diplomatic to take the very fact that someone else is objecting as strong evidence that the text really isn't as neutral as it could be. Our policy is that one must, with unusual exceptions, seek out a compromise in such cases. Intransigence--stubborn unwillingness to compromise--is usually contrary our neutrality policy.

Many neutrality disputes concern just a few words, i.e., literal matters of how something is worded, so that the article appears to endorse a certain view that not everyone will agree with. In that case, the actual compromise position should be obvious: the offending text is merely qualified or attributed, so that no one will think that the article endorses the view.

It is crucial to understand, however, that compromise does not require that one reach a midpoint advocacy position. One might worry that ideologues would constantly and unreasonably demand new compromises, causing the position an article advocates to "drift" toward the ideologue's position. This is, however, a complete misunderstanding of our neutrality policy, which requires that competing positions all be stated as sympathetically as possible. In other words, there is no "midpoint advocacy position" or "position an article advocates." This means that, if a certain position is held strongly, that force of conviction must be conveyed by the article. If the opposing side is equally passionate, that passion, too, must be conveyed. In both cases, however, it must be made fully clear who takes the positions in question--and that the article does not endorse either of them.

The variety of possible manner of expression of even the most basic facts is virtually infinite. Of all these ways to express things, many are likely to be acceptable to all parties--so long as they are actually committed to neutrality.

What about the prerogatives of editors?

Aren't there any exceptions?

Notes (in process)

Not only should we accept a good compromise, we should actively work toward a compromise. Consider intransigence contrary to policy.