On 11/05/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
For once, I feel that I am in complete agreement with Marc. Consensus doesn't cut it when you have a thousand participants in the discussion rather than a hundred, unless you want to resort to voting - which is effectively a tyranny of the majority.
Is a single leader making the final decisions really better than a "tyranny of the majority"? If the right person is chosen as leader, then it could work, but it's very difficult to find such a person.
Actually, the problem on Wikipedia is worse. Voting isn't tyranny of the majority, it's simply an exercise that allows those who can muster up more of a supporting group their way. And the "majority" is really some tiny group (relative to Wikipedia editors or more importantly the public). Then there's "discussion" (which is what people like to push on Wikipedia pointing out how voting is flawed if they think a vote won't go their way); i.e. the most vocal and bullying get their way.
Sorry to sound cynical, but I really think a lot of people are blind to how despotic and anarchic things really are on Wikipedia. It's a wonder anyone stays involved with Wikipedia for long - obviously we must attract a lot of strong-willed and determined individuals as editors.
Zoney