On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Has the userbox debate yet generated anything positive? Not in my viewing of it, at least not commensurate to the amount of frustration and negativity it has created on all sides of it, and the amount of resources it has taken up.
I regret my involvement in the userbox situation.
I've been away from Wikipedia for a while now, and have had time to reflect on recent affairs. I've also been doing some reading. The following paragraph jumped out at me from a book I was reading:
Robert was surely aware of the early evolutionary development of parliamentary procedure in the English House of Lords resulting in a movement from "consensus," in its original sense of unanimous agreement, toward a decision by majority vote as we know it today. This evolution came about from a recognition that a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety of misguided feelings--reluctance to be seen as opposing the leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon, fear of seeming an obstacle to unity--can easily lead to decisions being taken with a psuedoconsensus which in reality implies elements of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really assumes responsibility.
This paragraph really describes what I think is going on at Wikipedia.
I think it's time we reconsider whether "consensus" is a valid principle of governance in as large and contentious a community as this one has become, and whether we need to make more of an effort to move to parliamentarianism as a method of governance.
I'm not quite crazy enough to sign Karmafist's manifesto, but I am now convinced -- after reading the discussions here and in other places -- that Wikipedia needs a strict rule prohibiting administrative "wheel wars": if an admin performs ANY admin action and any other admin objects to it, it MUST be reverted and the matter referred for discussion and decision amongst a proper deliberative body. The current methods are yielding "pseudoconsensus" -- or sometimes multiple pseudoconsensuses -- and are magnifying disputes instead of tempering them. Until something is done, things will only get worse. Continuining on this course cannot be the best thing for Wikipedia.
Kelly