>-----Original Message-----
>From: Zoney [mailto:zoney.ie@gmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 04:01 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] "Consensus" and decision making on Wikipedia
>
>Consensus is a favorite word on Wikipedia, pulled out on all occasions
>whether on AfD, policy decisions, or simple article content matters. Going
>by the dictionary definition of "consensus" (e.g. on Wiktionary) or our own
>encyclopaedia article on consensus, can we really claim that decision-making
>on Wikipedia is by consensus?
>
>Historically many decisions seemed to mostly go by majority (of small group
>of debate/vote participants) or large majority for change. Now, partly on
>the basis of "voting is evil", there seems to be more and more decisions
>made after "debate", where realistically, the action taken afterwards (or
>during) is either arbitrary, majority wish (going by comment
>counting/argument weighting rather than vote counting), or simply rule by
>the strong-minded who just do what they wish when they've at least some
>people to back them up (indeed perhaps not even that). I would suggest few
>decisions are made from truly forming consensus between debate participants,
>let alone considering the wider community.
>
>Really - is there any hope of having a fixed method of decision-making on
>Wikipedia, rather than a shambolic pretence of achieving consensus that just
>allows groups to make decisions in different circumstances according to
>different methods as it suits them?
>
>Zoney
Consensus, like neutral point of view, has its mythic side, but making it work depends on participating in the process and learning how to make it work. We may eventually get good at it.
Fred