On 7/15/05, Dan Grey <dangrey(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/05, Michael Turley
<michael.turley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The reason 70/30 can be a "no" is a core principle of Wikipedia:
Wikipedia operates on consensus, not majority.
Of course, and I've known that since forever. But let's be honest -
that's not how it works, and it's not even how it *could* work.
"Consensus" can only mean everyone agrees - and when the hell that
does that happen? Next to never.
Consensus is a dream, and I think we should start facing up to that
fully and openly.
The minority ruling the majority isn't exactly healthy, either.
Dan
It's no wonder you seem to be frustrated by Wikipedia's processes.
You're working with an incorrect definition of consensus. I suspect
many others are, too, based on the large number of policy polls and
votes thrown up lately.
Consensus does NOT mean that everyone agrees, it only means that
everyone consents to the final decision. A decision that is
-accepted- by all members of a group is consensus. However, being
willing to accept something -does not- require nor should it imply
total agreement.
At Wikipedia, we do allow decisions to be made without -complete-
consensus, where a few who won't consent to a decision are left out,
but the consensus we try to build is well into "supermajority" range,
where all significant minority interests also consent. That is a big
reason why the community remains friendly and productive. There are
very few "losers" in Wikipedia consensus decisions.
Consensus building is where discussions and negotiation skills have
almost infinitely more value over polls and votes.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused