[WikiEN-l] Mother Teresa article (veto)

Tue Oct 28 17:29:19 UTC 2003

 From: engelsAG at t-online.de (Andre Engels)
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Mother Teresa article
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at 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 André. 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/