On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, the problem is Wikipedia's decision-making apparatus in general. It's allegedly "by consensus" - but if it really were, there would be paralysis (as most of the time, there are dissenters who don't back down - or even quite simply a clear lack of consensus - contributors to the particular decision-making discussion split pretty evenly two or more ways). It's allegedly not by voting (although that begs the question, why there are frequent votes), by majority or supermajority (although realistically, often decisions are taken on the basis of "most contributors to the discussion support it"). Despite idealists chosing to believe it doesn't happen, frequently the status quo is just determined by a small but persistent group, or even an individual. Considering people on the project are volunteers, no-one should have their impact on decisions decided solely by how much time they can afford, and so frequently contributors choose not to participate in decision-making (plenty of people like myself have stepped back from regular contribution due to the hassle it entails).
Yep, that's the problem. We all know that. Do you have a solution?
The first step is to stop lying about it: stop calling it consensus, stop saying it isn't a vote. Describe what's really happening. Admit there's a problem. Stop drinking the cool-aid.