On Monday 03 March 2003 10:47 pm, The Cunctator wrote:
> > Eh? Consensus is used to arrive at decisions. Semantic
> > arguments tire me - esp since they tend to change the
> > subject of discussions.
>
> By that logic, a Dodge Dart is equivalent to New York City, since cars
> are used to arrive at destinations.
>
> If you're going to put words in my mouth, I'd appreciate it if you
> respect the meaning of those words.
Sigh - more semantic arguments.
Consensus means an "agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief." It is
also, esp here, a shorthand term used to refer to the process by which that
agreement is reached. So even though I should have said "consensus building
process" that doesn't mean there wasn't an agreement.
> There certainly had been a consensus, a consensus of people who had
> little-to-no involvement in developing the entries. The discussion
> naturally attracted people who wanted to change the status quo, rather
> than those who were happy with it. Shouldn't a proper consensus involve
> more than a people who all want to jump on the same bandwagon?
So by your argument anybody who creates a set of pages that are not
encyclopedia articles that are viewed as being counter to the goals of our
project by a majority of long-time users, can simply not participate in
mailing list and other meta discussion to prevent the moving or deletion of
the pages they created? Come on - they can easily sign-on with a throw-away
email address and participate in our method of governance. Everybody here -
from the rank newbie to the people who have been around since the founding of
the project - can all participate.
Also, the discussion of this issue went on for months and was on a publicly
available and readable mailing list which was and still is easy to find
access to on meta and through the Main Page. There was ample opportunity for
people to express their views. So just because they didn't doesn't mean that
the consensus is invalid. Your above argument actually argues against the
whole system and not just this case.
> Popularity arguments tire me - esp when they involve groupthink.
What tires me is the fact that you have been working against the very people
trying to enact the consensus. Just because you don't agree with (hardly any)
consensus doesn't mean that the other people on this mailing list have such
weak constitutions that they subvert their owns views in favor of a perceived
group decision. In my experience the opposite is usually what happens:
peoples' views are so diverse and so strong that there is often no clear
consensus and we are left with the status quo.
It's fine if you don't want to help move these non-articles but please don't
work against those that are trying to move the content to their new home. If
I were MyRedDice I would find it very discouraging after working several
hours moving these entries that one person unilaterally changed all the moves
to mere copies (saying only "please don't" in the edit summaries). The point
in the first place was to move - not copy the material (granted the pages
should have been cross-wiki redirected instead of redirected to [[September
11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Casualties]] but that is the only thing MyRedDice
did wrong).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma
The usual at [[March 1]]