On 28/06/07, Monahon, Peter B. <Peter.Monahon(a)uspto.gov> wrote:
"White Cat" wrote: It is not supposed
to
be a vote at all. Vote based decisions
happen in democracies and we are not one.
"Vote calls" and "democracies", that's mob, er,
"majority" rules, right?
And it really means: "majority of voters" rule (or more accurately:
"majority of vote COUNTERS" rule).
To re-iterate; allegedly we don't do vote counting, but have discussion
leading to consensus. However, consensus is not usually reached in
discussions, but rather a majority or super-majority (vote/comment counting)
in favour/against some change or strong influence success by some
individuals on the people making the action.
My problem is that perpetuating the lie that decision-making on Wikipedia is
by consensus, we don't strictly adhere to any other decision-making form (
e.g. majority voting). In consequence, decisions are "whatever people can
get away with". Of course if there's an actual real consensus (general
agreement) then there's a valid reason for a decision not being challenged.
But more often than not all it means is that influencial individuals ensure
they get their way and others give up (that isn't forming consensus by the
way), or else we have majority/mob rule.
Besides, usually decisions are challenged on an on-going basis after they're
made - that doesn't suggest consensus. I'll be quite clear, I am saying that
I do not believe consensus is usually possible.
Zoney
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...