On 08/07/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
1. AfD is not a vote;
2. Admins who count votes should not be closing AfDs.
3. An objective vote count is rarely an accurate gauge of whether an
article
ought to be kept or deleted; admins should be taking into account other
factors like AfDs when they gauge the consensus of the debate.
Johnleemk
Again the redefinition of the word "consensus" to avoid meaning general
agreement. No-one should ever have to "gauge" the consensus - if it is
there, it's there - i.e. general agreement all round. If you don't have
that, you don't have consensus. Admins should never have to make
"controversial" decisions if decision-making in Wikipedia were actually by
consensus.
Now if people want to stop pretending, and call what Wikipedia looks for in
decision making something other than consensus - fine. Otherwise decisions
should strictly not be taken where there is not consensus. Of course this
would bring the project to a standstill. So I suggest people stop using the
word "consensus".
I think a lot of people on Wikipedia now have a definition of "consensus"
that means "Wikipedia's decision making mechanism" (whatever that actually
happens to be in any given debate; sometimes genuine consensus, other times
vote counting, super-majority, convincing arguments, everyone but a small
minority or one or two individuals in agreement, whatever the action-taker
gets away with, and so on)
Zoney
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...