> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Marc Riddell <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> People agree and support the decision. >>>>> >>>> Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring >>>> that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be >>>> factually validated? >> >> on 2/1/11 10:34 PM, George Herbert at [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this >>> general question has no exact answer. >>> >>> This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including >>> those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes; >>> scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the >>> community trying to understand or quantify it; many others. >>> >>> That's the way it works, though. >>> >>> I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is >>> often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done >>> in. The reality is that we're there. That's how Wikipedia works (for >>> whatever definition of "work" you care to apply to the state of the >>> project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory). >> >> George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To >> state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the Wikipedia >> Community" is fundamentally dishonest.
on 2/1/11 11:12 PM, George Herbert at [email protected] wrote: > > Consensus is the method which was chosen for Wikipedia to determine > things (in general). Raw majority voting (or supermajority voting) > was intentionally not chosen. > > It's entirely fine to point out that this leads to existential angst > over what consensus is, means, or how anyone ever determines it. But > that's what we do, every day for the last 10 years. Something worked, > at least some of the time. > > You're looking for a deeper meaning (fair) and a way to legitimately > and concretely get approval for changes (fair to ask for) that gives > you an answer you feel was unambiguously arrived at. > > We have no guarantee that the last clause will ever be satisfied under > the consensus system. Some issues are uncontroversial and it's not > really challenged that consensus exists. Some issues are very > controversial, and calling the consensus either way is ambiguous. > > I understand and acknowledge that the ambiguity is a pain point for > you. That is the system, for better or worse. There is no magic > wand. > George, your equivocation surprises me. My assessment of the Wikipedia "consensus" process remains the same. And your implied suggestion that it works because Wikipedia is still here and going strong: you are mistaking size for strength, mass for solidity. Wikipedia's structure may be massive, but it is by no means solid. My prognosis if some basic lifestyle changes aren't made: Poor. Marc _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
