On 11/05/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
For once, I feel that I am in complete agreement
with Marc. Consensus
doesn't cut it when you have a thousand participants in the discussion
rather than a hundred, unless you want to resort to voting - which is
effectively a tyranny of the majority.
Is a single leader making the final decisions really better than a
"tyranny of the majority"? If the right person is chosen as leader,
then it could work, but it's very difficult to find such a person.
Actually, the problem on Wikipedia is worse. Voting isn't tyranny of the
majority, it's simply an exercise that allows those who can muster up more
of a supporting group their way. And the "majority" is really some tiny
group (relative to Wikipedia editors or more importantly the public). Then
there's "discussion" (which is what people like to push on Wikipedia
pointing out how voting is flawed if they think a vote won't go their way);
i.e. the most vocal and bullying get their way.
Sorry to sound cynical, but I really think a lot of people are blind to how
despotic and anarchic things really are on Wikipedia. It's a wonder anyone
stays involved with Wikipedia for long - obviously we must attract a lot of
strong-willed and determined individuals as editors.
Zoney
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...