Compromise as a Citizendium policy

[Larry Sanger]

I think that we should adopt compromise as a policy on the same fundamental level as neutrality.  In other words, if you fail to compromise when you should, you're actually breaking a rule.

See: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Compromise

Comments?

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

compromise over what sort of things? I think we need some specifics, because not all compromise is good. You may recall the British attempt to compromise with Hitler [something of a mistake]

LATER:
I just read the wiki section on it. My feeling is that it is a mistake to muddle expertise and compromise. The ability to compromise is often a matter of character, but is also often a matter of experience and knowledge. Separating out all of these things is going to be too difficult. The editor role cannot get mixed up with this notion, in my view.

[Robert_W_King]

I have to agree that compromise, when one party is wrong on all or many accounts, is a bad thing.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

Not considering compromise as it relates to wording in a discussion between two experts, or in a discussion between two people with valid research saying different things is absolutely necessary.

However, when one side comes on with something ridiculous that is unsupported by the majority of the facts, or disputed by most experts in the field, compromising with them will result in a worse article.

Also, as a rule of thumb, please don't use Hitler in an example.  On the Internet, it's considered extreme flamebait (inviting an argument) or outright trolling.  I'm not accusing you of any of those things (because I know you'd never do so deliberately), just saying that mentioning Hitler tends to kill a thread pretty fast (even in valid comparisons).

[a.a.s.]

[Removed my post, need to have a closer look at the text on the wiki.]

[Stephen Ewen]

I think compromise can be good when you have Very Stubborn Near-"Infallible" User A who, because of said stubbornness and inflated pride, refuses (or who exhibits incapability) to address fully defensible propositions from Reasonable User B. 

On the other, I'd hate to see Crack-Pot User X use this against Reasonable User B. 

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I am more concerned about semi-reasonable [but wrong] user A using it against Editor B.

The point about Hitler [or MacMillan] as an example, is to take the issue into the real world. I dislike theoretical arguments: but for technological change, all of our debates have already been played out in history. The MacMillan compromise was one of those terrible errors of history, and it is appropriate to mention this.

[Aleta Curry]

I look at it from a different point of view:  arguments between people aside, what happens to the actual work?  I've seem a lot of writing "compromised" into error on another wiki, and then when the error is pointed out, "compromised" on again, wording that seems too definite "compromised" on, and the result is redundancy and mediocrity.

[Robert_W_King]

I can't help but think of that if we accept compromise as a policy we will be no better than WP's arbcom resolutions and to head that way would be a dreadful mistake.  It would practically open up the floodgates of user account registration request for those who wish to join the project simply to have their own biased views accepted in a watered-down state.

[RJensen]

We have a system in place where editors make the compromises and decisions. As far as the areas I follow closely (history, politics, military), there has never been a serious dispute between workgroup editors that they did not work out just fine.  On the other hand we have had a few very difficult authors. For example one is convinced that CZ is controlled by a left-wing cabal and that any statement remotely favorable to one of their enemies (like the Clintons) is therefore "biased" and must be removed. These folks are a pain and "compromising" validates their work and encourages them.

[Robert_W_King]

On the other hand we have had a few very difficult authors. For example one is convinced that CZ is controlled by a left-wing cabal and that any statement remotely favorable to one of their enemies (like the Clintons) is therefore "biased" and must be removed. These folks are a pain and "compromising" validates their work and encourages them.

That doesn't seem like a very professional statement to make.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

That doesn't seem like a very professional statement to make.

Depends which profession you think Richard engages in 

Seriously, there has not been an unresolved dispute between editors, to my knowledge. I have had quite a few disagreements with Richard, but we have resolved them peacefully. I am fearful of the likely weakening of editorial power over content, for the reasons stated by Richard, Robert, Aleta and others.

[Stephen Ewen]

I am fearful that if editors who are authoring articles act as editors in those articles the project is doomed.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I am fearful that if editors who are authoring articles act as editors in those articles the project is doomed.

100% agreement from me.

[Stephen Ewen]

See http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ_Talk:Dispute_Resolution#Root_and_fruit.