On 11/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:03:27 +0100, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Tough. In such an situation there wasn't any consensus reached.
Wikipedia does "consensus" not consensus. If you want consensus you need to ask the Religious Society of Friends, who will stay at the table until everyone agrees. This was a case where a Wikipedia-style consensus, as in pretty much everyone who had any flexibility at all, was impeded by the obduracy of one or two hold-outs, with the result that a guideline was effectively torpedoed and the matter had to be fought out in the court of AfD, which is never a good place.
Guy (JzG)
"Wikipedia-style consensus"
So why call it consensus? Other than to mislead the general public who assume the *English* definition of consensus and think Wikipedia is a wonderful place where everyone eventually agrees and all decisions are made with general agreement.
Besides, the definition for "consensus" in the Wikipedian language as opposed to English is not concrete. Your definition essentially allows people to be ignored/overruled if the decision-makers see fit. Lack of flexibility/compromise from the objectors is not a valid reason. The objectors may be right and so it's quite reasonable that they don't compromise.
Zoney