Yes, Gregory, excellent points, reminiscent of Clay Shirkey.
Whatever the (sub)-optimal solution, one person making a decision that on the face of it contradicts the decision made in a near identical situation last time; and not allowing at least a months discussion; and this person not being accountable him or herself to someone else, is _not_ the answer.
--Avi
On Jan 10, 2008 11:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 11:51 AM, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Alex, the more important point here is not the goodness or badness of rollback, it is the gross disregard for the wikipedia community that
JuLef
(sp?) had by implementing this procedure in the face of significant
clear
and present opposition.
[snip]
Not taking an action is itself an action.
The status quo is not that special.
Consensus is strongly preferred, sure, but why is it that you would think a non-consensus minority-willed preservation of the status quo is right, when a non-consensus majority-willed change is wrong?
If we reach a point where the user base is so large and diverse that many important issues can not achieve a clear consensus by numerical standards, what then? Shall Wikipedia be forever frozen in whatever state it was already in by historical chance or by past unilateral decisions? Is that really a road to success?