Thomas Dalton wrote:
It's difficult to say. There are definite downsides
to such a
situation - for example, consider a scenario where there is a problem
and two potential solutions, either of which would work, and the
community is fairly evenly split between them. It doesn't really
matter which is chosen, but neither will be chosen because anyone
trying to push forward their idea will be pushed back by the other
side. In the past, it's always been possible for someone in authority
to step in a say "Ok, this is how it's going to be" and people would
accept that. That is becoming less and less the case and sooner or
later, we will end up in an argument we can't get out of. The most
likely next step would be voting and decide policy that way. It would
be the end of consensus driven decision making and the beginning of
democracy (I think that is generally accepted as a bad thing).
The problem here relates to the fallacy of the excluded middle. It's
the mentality that says, "You're either with us or agaiunst us." It
justifies having two people in a street fight working together to beat
up anybody who would dare to try to break up their fight. When you
start by saying that there are only two possible solutions you probably
insure that the best solution is frozen out. In the context of the
BJAODN dispute it leads us to a keep it all versus a delete it all
choice, and avoids forging a solution that would have wider satisfaction.
It is also a fallacy to say that consensus and democracy are somehow
opposing concepts. Consensus is clearly more democratic than voting.
Voting implies a pe-defined question.
The other fallacy to be avaided is saying that all policy decisions are
final. We have shown ourselves ill-equipped to deal with subtle changes
in circumstances when people insist on the strict leteral application of
rules. Rather then defending hard-wired rules we need to be sensitive
to changes, and the need to consider the opinions of those who did not
participate in the formation of the rules for whatever reason. These
reasons include not having been a part of the Wikipedia community at the
time the rule was adopted. We need to recognize that the young people
who will be most affected by rules did not have a vote in the way that
the older generations chose to fuck it up.
That's the main problem with large groups -
consensus becomes
impossible to achieve. We've already had to switch to "rough
consensus" in most places, which causes no end of problems since there
is no real definition of what "rough consensus" is.
Then we need to make it less impossible. Rough consensus is nothing
more than an intermediate stage.
The only idea I've had for dealing with this
situation once it gets
unmanageable is some kind of parliament. The community elects a
certain number of MPs, and the MPs make policy decisions (just making
policy - enforcing policy in individual cases remains with the
community) based on consensus. Basically, mixing democracy and
consensus. It is a far from ideal solution, but it is getting harder
and harder to make policy decisions, and sooner or later it will
become impossible and we will need something.
What makes it harder for policy decisions is the unwillingness of some
to consider alternative solutions. MPs don't exactly inspire confidence
in the real world; what makes you think that wikiMPs would do any
better? Maybe we should be looking at entirely new ways of adopting
policy. Are we capable of the imagination that such an approach would
require?
I prefer to leave the matter of enforcement to some other time.
Ec