On 28/06/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
"White Cat" wrote: It is not supposed to be a vote at all. Vote based decisions happen in democracies and we are not one.
"Vote calls" and "democracies", that's mob, er, "majority" rules, right?
And it really means: "majority of voters" rule (or more accurately: "majority of vote COUNTERS" rule).
To re-iterate; allegedly we don't do vote counting, but have discussion leading to consensus. However, consensus is not usually reached in discussions, but rather a majority or super-majority (vote/comment counting) in favour/against some change or strong influence success by some individuals on the people making the action.
My problem is that perpetuating the lie that decision-making on Wikipedia is by consensus, we don't strictly adhere to any other decision-making form ( e.g. majority voting). In consequence, decisions are "whatever people can get away with". Of course if there's an actual real consensus (general agreement) then there's a valid reason for a decision not being challenged. But more often than not all it means is that influencial individuals ensure they get their way and others give up (that isn't forming consensus by the way), or else we have majority/mob rule.
Besides, usually decisions are challenged on an on-going basis after they're made - that doesn't suggest consensus. I'll be quite clear, I am saying that I do not believe consensus is usually possible.
Zoney