[Wikipedia-l] Re: No voting? Then what?

[Jeroen Heijmans]

wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
> Please give the dismissive tone some time off. Wikipedia is a silly name
> too.

My point was rather there's no reason why anything on any other Wiki should apply here. And I'd
rather hear arguments from you than reading an extensive discussion between other, non-involved
persons. 
 
> > So, suppose voting is evil. Then how do we make decisions? Because with the
> > current number of members on this list, there's never going to be something
> > like consensus.
> That's simply not true.

Consensus means everybody agrees, right? I've never seen that so far on the list, but I may have
missed it.
 
> > Endless discussions are tiring and getting us nowhere.
> It may be tiring, but it's hardly getting us nowhere. Ideas and thoughts
> have steadily been introduced and refined.

Note the "endless" part. Discussions are necessary and useful. But after a while it becomes
restating of opinions. Discussions then either end without a solution or don't end. That's bad. It
happens a lot.
 
> > That's not a desirable situation. Voting could end
> > discussions. But "voting is evil", so what to do then?
> 
> Are you willing to admit the basic problems with voting?

I think voting is just fine. Sure, there are some drawbacks, but I don't see them as critical. At
least it has the advantage that decisions are made.

> An example of how consensus rather than voting can work is in progress at
> [[Wikipedia:Bots]].

Where? I don't see any decisions being taken, rather a proposal only edited by you and Chas zzz
brown - hardly consensus. Also, there's some voting at the top... 

Jeronimo